A Comparison of The Emotional Indicators On The House-Tree-Person PDF

Andrews University
Digital Commons @ Andrews University

Dissertations Graduate Research
2003
A Comparison of the Emotional Indicators on the

House-Tree-Person Drawings and the Kinetic-
House-Tree-Person Drawing
Denise Ann Stoddard
Andrews University
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations

Part of the Other Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation
Stoddard, Denise Ann, "A Comparison of the Emotional Indicators on the House-Tree-Person Drawings and the Kinetic-House-Tree-
Person Drawing" (2003). Dissertations. Paper 718.
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Thank you for your interest in the
Andrews University Digital Library

of Dissertations and Theses.
Please honor the copyright of this document by

not duplicating or distributing additional copies
in any form without the author’s express written
permission. Thanks for your cooperation.
Andrews University
School of Education
A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON

THE HOUSE-TREE-PERSON DRAWINGS AND THE
KINETIC-HOUSE-TREE-PERSON DRAWING
A Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Denise Ann Stoddard
August 2003
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3098164
UMI
UMI Microform 3098164
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
A dissertation
presented in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Denise Ann Stoddard
APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:
Chair: Nancy J. Carbonell D e a n X School of Ed^cat ion

James Jeffery
Membe
_ ^ . .1 (?- .
Member: Dennis E. Waite Date approved
External Examiner:^Candice
TTv’^TTri nor* * ( / Hollingsead
ABSTRACT

by
Denise Ann Stoddard
Chair: Dr. Nancy J. Carbonell
ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH
Dissertation
Andrews University
School of Education
Title: A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON THE

HOUSE-TREE-PERSON DRAWINGS AND THE
Name of researcher: Denise Ann Stoddard
Name and degree of faculty chair: Nancy J. Carbonell, Ph.D.
Date completed: August 2003
Problem
Robert Burns, author of the Kinetic-Family-
Drawing, -has devised a projective test called the
Kinetic-House-Tree-Person drawing. He has taken the
House-Tree-Person projective technique and changed the
instructions to include all of the figures on one page and
also to include an action. In Burns's book on the K-H-T-P
he claimed that his drawing gives a better clinical picture
of the subject than the H-T-P. However, there is no
research that compares the two tests for clinical
information.
Method
The H-T-P and K-H-T-P were administered to 204
college students 18 years of age and older. These students
came from one university in Michigan and one in Illinois.
They were a non-clinical sample, meaning that they were not
in therapy. Emotional indicators were extracted from the
drawings, and then the indicators were analyzed using the
Chi Square statistic called the McNemar test.
Results
There were 499 different emotional indicators found
on the drawings, and 108 indicators were found to be
si gnificant. There were 74 indicators that were found
significantly more often on the H-T-P than on the K-H-T-P.
There were 34 indicators that were found significantly more
often on the K-H-T-P than on the H-T-P. The H-T-P had
indicators in the categories of general drawing
characteristic, house, tree, and person. The K-H-T-P had
indicators in all of those categories and also in actions,
styles, and s y m b o l s . The H-T-P had more than twice as many
indicators as the K - H - T - P . The category that had the most
indicators for both tests was the house, with 56% of the
indicators on the H-T-P and 32% on the K - H - T - P .
Conclusions
The H-T-P and K-H-T-P differ in the emotional
indicators that are evoked from the drawings. With the
H-T-P having more than twice as many indicators as the
K-H-T-P, it is shown to be a stronger projective technique
in eliciting information about the subject. Although
similar in name, the tests are not interchangeable. Each
test has been shown to have merit, and they could both be
used in a psychological assessment battery to add the most
amount of information to the clinical picture.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF A B B R E V I A T I O N S . ............................ vi
ACKNOWLED GM ENT S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION................................... 1
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of the S t u d y ....................... 5
Significance of the Study ................ 5
Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . 6
Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Research Hypothesis ....................... 12
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Delineation of the Research Problem . . . 13
Delimitations .............................. 14
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . 17
II. REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ..................... 19
Draw-A-Family Drawing .................... 19

The K - F - D ......................... 23
Research With the K-F-D . . . . . . . . . 27
Origination of the H - T - P . . . . . . . . . 38
Early Research With the H - T - P ........... 41
H-T-P Research on Abuse . . . . . . . . . 44
H-T-P Research With College S tu d e n t s . . . 46
Miscellaneous H-T-P Res e a r c h .............. 49
The K-H-T-P ........... 53
Emotional I n d i c ato rs . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Chapter Summary ........................... 65
III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Description of the R e s e a r c h .............. 67

Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Selection of the Sample ......... 68
iii
Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Instrumentation . ....................... 70
H-T-P Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
K-H-T-P Reliability ....................... 72
Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Pro ced ur es 75
Collection of the D a t a . . . . . . . . . . 77
Data E n t r y .................................. 78
Null Hypothesis and A n a l y s i s . . . . . . . 79
Chapter Summary .................. 80
IV. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . 81
Demographic Data of the S a m p l e . . . . . . 81

Emotional Indicators Found in the Sample. 83
Testing the H y p o t h e s i s . . . . . . . . . . 84
Presentation of the Fi ndings.............. 86
Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 115
S u m m a r y .................................... 115
Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . 115
Overview of Related Li ter atu re......... 117
Purpose of the S t u d y ............... 120
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
S a m p l i n g ................................ 120
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Research Question . . . . . 121
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Results of the Hypothesis Testing . . . 122
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
The Test C o m p a r i s o n .................... 123
Findings on the H-T-P . . . . . . . . . 126
Findings on the K - H - T - P ................ 128
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Recommendations ........................... 136
Appendixes
A. PARTICIPANT CONSENT F O R M ............. 139

B. 499 EMOTIONAL INDICATORS
FOUND IN THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . 141
REFERENCE LIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
VITA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
iv
LIST OF TABLES
1. Checklist for Emotional Indicators 78
2. Sample Distribution by Gender by

First D r a w i n g ............. . 82
3. Sample Distribution by Age Range 82
4. Data on Emotional Indicators by

Protocol ....................... 83
5. Data on Emotional Indicators by

T6 St 85
6. Emotional Indicators Found Significantly

More Often on the H-T-P ............. 88
7. Emotional Indicators Found Significantly

More Often on the K-H-T-P ........... 105
8. Summary of Emotional Indicators by

Category ................................ 113
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS
D-A-F Draw-A-Family
D-A-P Draw-A-Person
FRI Family Relations Indicator
H-F-D Human-Figure-Drawing
H-T-P House-Tree-Person
K-F-D Kinetic-Family-Drawing
K-H-T-P Kinetic-House-Tree-Person
K-S-D Kinetic-School-Drawing
PDI Post Drawing Interrogation
S-D-R-S Semantic Differential Rating Scale
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to gratefully acknowledge everyone
who has helped me to make this dissertation a reality.
Thank you to my chair, Dr. Carbonell, and committee
members Dr. Futcher and Dr. Waite. I also thank Dr.
Habenicht for giving me the idea to do this type of
research.
I'm very grateful to all of the support staff
and faculty who have helped me to get this far. It
has been a great team effort.
A special thank-you to my three children whose
encouragement to get a Ph.D. has never ended. Thank
you Pete, Kati, and Joseph Stoddard.
I want to thank the spiritual realm for the
strength, energy, guidance, and blessings that I have
received along the way.
I can't thank everyone enough for the help and
encouragement you have shown to get me to this point.
The emotional indicators that I have evoked
from this experience are defined as gratitude, faith,
and love.
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This introductory chapter presents information
on the problem, the purpose of the study, the
significance of the study, the theoretical framework,
the research question, the research hypothesis,
definition of terms, delineation of the research problem,
delimitations, limitations, and organization of the
study.
The Problem
The use of a drawing of the family as a projective
technique was introduced by W. C . Hulse in 1951. It was
called the Draw-A-Family (D-A-F) test. Children were
asked to draw their family so that the drawing could be
used to help in the formulation of a d i a g n o s i s . Hulse
(1951) stated that the drawing invoked important
information about the relationships with siblings and
parents, the tension in the home atmosphere, and the
child's role in the family constellation. DiLeo (1970)
stated that the drawing of a family was highly colored
by the child's feelings as opposed to what they know.
Their response was mostly emotional, telling us how they
felt about themselves and their family. While analysis
was done of the distribution of the figures over the
paper, the size of the figures, the relation of each
figure to each other based on size and proximity,
shading, coloring, strength of pencil strokes, the
sequence in which the figures were drawn, and omissions
and exaggerations of body features, Hulse (1951, 1952)
emphasized that the "gestalt," or the overall concept of
the total picture, was of main concern for learning about
the dynamics of the drawer. Hulse (1951) believed that,
apart from the completed drawing, the behavior and
verbalization before, during, and after the drawing
provide information that was therapeutically revealing as
well. It was noted that when children were asked to draw
their family, the result was usually a row of unrelated
figures which showed no interaction (Burns, 1987).
Burns and Kaufman (1970, 1972) believed they could
improve upon this projective technique by creating what
they called the Kinetic Family Drawing (K-F-D) which
asked children to draw all of the members of their family
doing something, and making sure to not draw cartoon or
stick figures. It was hoped that the addition of
movement would give information about self-concept and
interpersonal relations (Burns & Kaufman, 1972), and
would contribute in showing relationships and
interactions, thus increasing the diagnostic information
available (Knoff & Prout, 1985).
In 1987, Burns (1987) attempted to make the same
type of improvement on the House-Tree-Person drawings
devised by Buck in 1948. Burns called his technique the
Kinetic-House-Tree-Person drawing (K-H-T-P). While the
H-T-P has each figure drawn on a separate sheet of paper,
the K-H-T-P has all three figures drawn on one sheet of
paper with the instructions to include some sort of
action. Burns stated that the K-H-T-P goes beyond what
the H-T-P can provide in clinical data (Burns, 1987).
Not only was the H-T-P limited because it was
standardized in psychiatric settings with a clinical
population (Burns, 1987), but he felt that by requesting
that the examinee draw the house, tree, and the person on
the same page along with a kinetic component, a whole new
wealth of interpretive information would be obtained.
Since Robert Burns presented his theory in a book written
in 1987, no studies have been conducted to compare these
two projective tests.
Projective techniques provide an important source
of clinical information. They have been a valuable part
4
of test batteries for clinicians and school psychologists
over the years, seen as revealing important aspects of an
individual's personality in a drawing. They provide an
understanding of, and insight into, the individual
through creative expression of raw emotion (Tokuda,
1980). Projective methods have routinely uncovered
unconscious determinants of self-expression that possibly
could not be manifested in direct communication. It is
believed that verbal communication is more subject to
conscious manipulation than graphic projection (Machover,
1949) .
Projectives can show what the individual m a y not
be aware of. By design, they are a non-threatening
technique that taps the deeper psychological functioning
of a person instead of the self-report tests that rely on
conscious material (West, 1998). In many cases, drawings
have revealed the individual's emotional and psychosexual
maturity, anxiety, guilt, aggression, fear, aspirations,
neurotic conflicts, paranoid features, and even
schizophrenia. Prognosis and treatment of a personality
problem or mental illness have been accurately made
solely on the drawings of a patient (Machover, 1949). In
the field of art therapy, projective drawings are
considered to be one of the most useful tools for
eliciting information and providing insight (Neale &
Rosal, 1993). Since projective techniques provide
valuable information to the clinician, further research
on these two projective tests is needed.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to compare the
House-Tree-Person (H-T-P) and the Kinetic-House-Tree-
Person (K-H-T-P) for clinical data. The research
extracted and compared the emotional indicators found on
the H-T-P drawings to those found on the K-H-T-P
drawings. The H-T-P is an established test that is
widely used and respected (Burns, 1987). The K-H-T-P
does not have that type of reputation and no research on
the test was found. If Burns's claims are correct, the
K-H-T-P should reveal more emotional indicators than what
is found on a set of H-T-P drawings. Comparing the
results of the two tests should show which drawings
contain more clinical data and whether the kinetic
component and interaction of the figures would add more
clinical data to the results.
Significance of the Study
More research is needed on the usefulness of the
K-H-T-P and how it compares to the H-T-P. If the one
6
drawing of the K-H-T-P could take the place of three
drawings, take less time to administer and interpret,
and produce more information about the drawer's
personality, then clinicians may want to use it more
than the H-T-P. Although Burns's book on the K-H-T-P
was written in 1987, it is hardly mentioned in the
research literature. It is possible that Burns did
for the H-T-P what he did for the D-A-F, but until
research bears this out, one will not really know.
Many of the sources referenced in this research
are very old. That is because the bulk of projective
work that was done decades ago is still being used
today, and very little recent research has been
conducted. Current research is needed in the area of
proj ective drawings to further the work that laid the
foundation for the interpretation of dr awi ng s.
Theoretical Framework
Projection is a concept that came from
psychoanalytic theory. Freud (1912) defined projection
as a defense mechanism that was used to defend against
disturbing impulses. Lustful, aggressive, or other
unacceptable impulses were seen as being possessed by
other people and not oneself when using projection. The
impulse was still manifested but in a way that was less
threatening to the individual and which reduced the
anxiety. Freud believed that the defenses were always in
operation; the intensity of their use fluctuating within
the personality yet never ceasing. He further stated that
defense mechanisms operated on the unconscious level,
making one unaware of their use and how much they are
used. Projection was seen to help the ego like itself
better and prevent its destruction (Freud, 1936).
However, projection carried to extremes could become a
very serious problem leading to full-blown paranoia
(Kahn, 2002). Klein (1963) stated that through
projection the picture of the external world was colored
by internal factors. She suggested that projection was
responsible for investing the world with positive and
negative emotions resulting in a subjective experience
that had psychological meaning to that individual.
Chodorow (1999) stated that the process of projection
could elicit early relations, situations, and people; it
could use the individual's current situation or any
important relationship or experience.
Freud and Jung both possessed an interest in the
interrelationships of art, symbols, and personality
(Malchiodi, 1998). Freud (1900) observed that images
represented forgotten or repressed memories and that
these symbols were likely to emerge through dreams or art
expressions. Freud believed that universal human
conflicts and neuroses motivated artists to artistic
creation. Freud's observation inspired and eventually
confirmed the belief that art expression could be a route
to understanding the inner world of the psyche.
Jung (1954) saw images in a different way from
Freud, placing importance on them in terms of universal
meanings. Jung was interested in the psychological
content of art expressions and, unlike Freud who never
asked his patients to draw their dream images, Jung often
encouraged his patients to draw. With the increasing
prominence of the work of Freud and Jung and the growing
interest in the art of people with mental illness,
projective tests of personality were developed
(Malchiodi, 1998). Devised primarily by clinical
psychologists, these tests became a standard part of a
battery of psychological tests after 1945 (Fine, 1979).
The theory behind projective tests is that when an
individual is given an ambiguous stimulus they will
project their needs, desires, fears, and values onto the
stimulus (Schultz & Schultz, 1998).
When working with projective techniques there are
certain fundamental principles that need to be stated in
order to understand the scope and limitations of these
techniques. Korner (1965) spelled out three assumptions
concerning projectives: The first is that all behaviors
are expressive of an individual's personality. From the
least significant to the most significant behavior, these
manifestations tell something about the individual.
Banking on this assumption, any technique that elicits
some form of behavior is reflecting the individual's
personality at work.
The second assumption is that people give
information that they will not or cannot otherwise give.
Projective techniques generally involve the presentation
of ambiguous material, and the individuals choose what
kind of meaning to attach to it. They disclose their
wishes, fears, preoccupations, hopes, and aspirations in
this process without knowing what they are revealing.
The third assumption of projective techniques is
called psychic determinism. This is when a story,
response, or drawing, elicited from a projective
technique, is not seen as a chance event. Individuals
produce personally meaningful material from all the
experiences and associations that they have had in their
life. Their choices of what they reveal from a
projective technique have significance to them.
10
Buck (1948) stated that a conventional
definition of a projective technique is a stimulus
presented to a subject so ambiguous or so unstructured
that the meaning found within it must come from within
the subject. Buck said that while a subject is asked to
draw a house, a tree, and a person, they are not told
what house, tree, or person to draw. The subject must
choose what they will draw from their experiences and
perceptions of the world. Because of this, Buck felt
that the H-T-P qualified as a projective technique. He
stated that the H-T-P was based on the assumption that an
individual's drawing included aspects of their inner
world. The personality strengths and weaknesses
displayed by the subject included the degree to which
their inner resources could be invoked to handle
psychodynamic conflicts (Buck, 1992).
Buck (1948) phrased this postulate by saying
that "the subject was presented with stimuli which were
completely familiar, but at the same time so completely
non-specific that in order to respond thereto the subject
had to project" (p. 320). Buck further postulated that
the drawings of a house, tree, and person were to be
regarded as self-portraits since subjects were believed
to draw characteristics that they felt were essential.
11
The interpretation of these "significant" details
provides information concerning, among other things, the
subject's wishes, fears, desires, aspirations, and
confl ic ts.
Burns (1987) believed that the K-H-T-P revealed a
visual metaphor that was unlimited by words because of
the interaction and relationship of the figures. He
indicated that when subjects drew a tree, they were
revealing their individual transformation processes.
When drawing a person, they were reflecting the self or
ego functions interacting with the tree to create a
larger metaphor. The house depicted the physical aspects
of the subject that created an even larger metaphor in
relation to the other figures.
In this study the two types of drawings, the H-T-P
and K-H-T-P, were examined for their projective content.
Since projective data reveal the inner world and
personality of the subject, the projective drawing that
can produce more projective data will supply the
clinician with more information about the subject. A
comparison of the projective content on the H-T-P and the
K-H-T-P would reveal which type of drawing would be most
beneficial for eliciting emotional indicators for
therapeutic in terventions.
12
Research Question
This study examined one question: Does the
occurrence of emotional indicators found on the H-T-P
drawings differ significantly from those found on the
K-H-T-P drawing?
Research Hypothesis
One hypothesis was produced from the one question:
There is no significant difference in the frequency of
occurrence of emotional indicators that are found in
the H-T-P drawings and the K-H-T-P drawings.
Definition of Terms
The following list of terms are defined as they
are used in this research study.
Anchoring: A style defined by Burns and Kaufman
(1972) where all figures are drawn within one inch of a
single edge of the paper.
Attachment: Two or three figures that are touching.
One example is the tree touching the house. This type of
style was defined by Burns and Kaufman (1972).
Compartmentalization: A style of drawing where
there is intentional separation of figures by straight
lines.
Edging: A style of drawing where all figures are
13
drawn on two or more edges of the paper.
Emotional Indicator (E.I .): A drawing
characteristic that has been proven to be tied with a
particular feeling or personality trait present in the
drawer. An example of this would be drawing teeth in the
mouth of a person. Teeth have been proven to be
associated with anger or hostility. Emotional indicators
are the term used for all things looked for on a drawing
such as compartmentalization, underlining an individual,
small head, and interaction.
Encapsulation: One or more figures (but not all)
are enclosed by encircling lines. This style was defined
by Burns and Kaufman (1972).
Folding Compartmentalization: Folding the paper
into segments and drawing individual figures in these
segments.
Interaction: The attachments, distances, order of
figures drawn, and sizes of the figures in relation to
each other.
Delineation of the Research Problem
In order to compare the K-H-T-P to the H-T-P, the
two projective tools had to be put on an equal footing.
When Burns compared the two in his book (Burns, 1987), he
stated that the instructions for the H-T-P were to draw
14
the figures on separate sheets of paper. He did not
mention the post-drawing interrogation (PDI) that
had been a part of the instructions since the test was
first devised (Buck, 1948). Although the manual for
the H-T-P drawings has been revised over the years (Buck,
1992), there is much more to administering the H-T-P than
what Burns described. Apart from all of the questions
that were asked on the PDI, a drawing of a person of the
opposite gender than what was originally drawn was
requested, a sun was requested to be drawn in the picture
if not already present, and an H-T-P drawn with crayons
was requested. It should be noted that none of these
were mentioned in Burns's comparisons of the two drawings
in his book.
In order to fairly compare the two tests, the
analysis of the drawings was based on the interpretation
manuals for the H-T-P, the K-H-T-P, and the K-F-D. The
manuals provided a list of the emotional indicators to
look for on the two drawings. No PDI was conducted on
the H-T-P since it did not form part of the comparison
done on the two tests in Burns's book (1987).
Delimitations
In order to quantify and measure each drawing, it
was not feasible to include interpretations by the
15
examiner. Only the emotional indicators found on the
drawings were used in the comparison between the K-H-T-P
and the H-T-P. Interpretations could be different from
one examiner to the next without a firm basis from which
to form conclusions. This could lead to the projection
of the examiner onto the projective material. While it
might suffice in clinical applications, it does not seem
appropriate for research. The foreword of Dr. Burns's
book (1987) was written by Louise Bates Ames, Ph.D.,
chief psychologist at the Gesell Institute of Child
Development, and formerly president of the Society for
Projective Techniques. Here Dr. Ames suggests that the
material be used as inspirational rather than taken as
gospel. Dr. Ames also went on to say that Dr. Burns's
fascinating but unusual interpretations should be thought
of as possibilities instead of guarantees, and hoped that
some of the interpretations would not be taken literally
as they were unsubstantiated.
Since Dr. Burns's book (1987) came with such
cautions, this research concentrated only on what was
visible in each drawing without considering subjective
interpretation. Another reason for not looking at
interpretations of the picture was that Dr. Burns said
that the examples provided in his book were about people
16
who were in therapy (Burns, 1987). More information was
obtained about the individuals through interviews and
time spent in therapy, which meant that when
interpretations were made, there was much more data about
the individual upon which to base it on. On the other
hand, in research, the examiner does not know the
subjects and spends only the necessary time with them to
acquire the drawings and pertinent information.
The population used in this research was college
students. This population gave an adequate baseline on
what the drawings look like when drawn by a college-age
adult group. Choosing adults who were functioning
satisfactorily in a college program should reflect more
normality and growth than pathology in the drawings. The
intent of this research was not to necessarily find
pathology in the drawings, but to do a comparison of the
emotional indicators on the two projective tests.
Evaluation of the use of color was not
investigated. Although chromatic drawings have been
interpreted for both the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P by their
respective authors, all drawings for this research were
completed using black-lead pencils only. Nor was
research conducted in the area of calculating an I.Q.
from the findings of the d r a w i n g s .
17
The developmental stages that Burns listed in his
book (Burns, 1987) were not used in this research.
Burns's developmental stages were defined by the
emotional indicators found in the drawing and, since
emotional indicators were already being extracted from
the drawings in this research, the developmental stage of
a figure would not add to the findings. The drawings
were examined for projective material, not for any
developmental analysis. All drawings were investigated
only for their emotional indicators in order to compare
the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P and find which drawing would
elicit more clinical data.
Limitations
It was assumed that the subjects in the sample
understood the instructions of the projective drawings,
followed them, and drew in an honest fashion. The
research was based on the sample that was studied and
cannot be generalized to the population.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 presented the problem, purpose of the
study, significance of the study, theoretical framework,
research question, research hypothesis, definition of
terms, delineation of the research problem,
18
delimitations, and limitations. Chapter 2 will focus on
the literature relevant to the Draw-A-Family drawing, the
K-F-D, research with the K-F-D, origination of the H-T-P,
early research with the H-T-P, H-T-P research with abuse,
H-T-P research with college students, miscellaneous H-T-P
research, the K-H-T-P, emotional indicators, and a
summary. Chapter 3 will discuss the methods used to
carry out the research including the description,
population, sample, v a r ia ble s, instrumentation, H-T-P
reliability, K-H-T-P reliability, pilot study,
procedures, collection of the data, data entry, null
hypothesis and analysis, and a summary.
Chapter 4 will provide the presentation of the
data that was divided into the sections of the
demographic data of the sample, the emotional indicators
found in the sample, testing the hypothesis, the
presentation of the findings, and a summary. Chapter 5
will conclude the research with a summary of the study,
discussion of the findings, implications of the study,
and recommendations for future re search.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature review in this chapter includes the
following t o p i c s : Draw-a-family drawing, the K-F-D,
research with the K-F-D, origination of the H-T-P, early
research with the H-T-P, H-T-P research on abuse, H-T-P
research with college students, miscellaneous H-T-P
research, the K-H-T-P, emotional indicators, and a
summary.
Draw-A-Family Drawing
There are few references to the Draw-A-Family
drawing in the literature, and of those found, they
disagree in name, the materials used, and in the
instructions given. Hulse (1951, 1952) provided 8H x 12
inch white paper, black and colored pencils, and allowed
the child to draw freely before they were asked to draw
their family. Reznikoff and Reznikoff (1956) used a 9 x
12-inch paper, pencil, and asked the child to draw
his/her family, including him/herself, and referred to
the drawing as a Family Drawing T e s t . Shearn and Russell
(1969) furnished paper and pencil, and would simply ask
19
20
the child to draw his/her own family, including
him/herself, or to draw a picture of a family. Shearn and
Russell said that they actually preferred the latter
directions because it appeared to give the subject more
latitude in making the drawing. In addition, they asked
the parents of the identified patient to draw a family.
DiLeo (1970) gave his patients green-tinted
letter-sized paper and a red crayon. Children were then
instructed to draw a picture of their family, and the
drawings were referred to as "Drawing the Family." Deren
(1975) provided an 8^ by 11 sheet of paper and asked each
member to draw a family. All authors asked the child to
identify the figures that were drawn so that there was no
question as to whom the figures represented in the
drawing.
Hulse (1952) obtained several hundred drawings
done by children who were brought to parent-child
guidance clinics, private practice, institutions, and
social agencies. The drawings were done during initial
psychiatric interviews. Hulse stated that the value of
the drawing was to communicate the conscious and
unconscious material about the child and their family,
which would have not otherwise been obtained in an
interview. This material was an aid in the diagnostic
21
evaluation of the child and family relations.
Another use for the drawings was to show the
improvement that a child had made after receiving therapy
(Hulse, 1951). Hulse claimed that the difference in the
drawings of families by a child entering a guidance
clinic, and after 22 months of therapy, was striking.
Severe pathological distortions in human figures had
completely disappeared, showing that the child was on the
way to recovery.
Reznikoff and Reznikoff (1956) conducted a study of
100 second-grade children to ascertain whether there were
differences in family drawings according to gender, race,
or economic status. They found that the drawings of boys
and girls differed in that boys drew themselves in the
middle of the family group more often, and tended to omit
the mother figure or draw her without arms. The drawings
of White and Black children differed only in that Black
children omitted fingers from their figures and
frequently omitted siblings. When drawings were sorted
according to economic classification, children from low-
income families often omitted the mother figure, drew an
older sibling as the largest figure of the family, and
made themselves the smallest figure. They often drew
their families suspended in air, and frequently drew the
22
father figure without any arms.
Shearn and Russell (1969) extended the family
drawing technique by obtaining a drawing from each parent
along with their child's drawing. They included the
family drawing in a battery of tests administered by a
psychologist when a child was admitted to a residential
treatment center for emotional disturbance. The adult
drawings were obtained during an interview with each of
the parents. Parents were asked to draw their present
family, not their family of origin. In this way there
would be three representations of the same family where
the perspective of the child, mother, and father could be
compared. Comparing the parents' drawings to that of the
child was reported to provide important information on
the family dynamics concerning family relationships and
parent-child interaction. Shearn and Russell (1969)
stated that the utility of this technique varied from
case to case, but usually provided useful information to
be explored further in therapy.
Deren (1975) conducted a study where she collected
239 Draw-A-Family drawings from a total of 91 families.
The ethnic distribution was 30% Black, 30% Puerto Rican,
30% White, and 10% classified as Other (primarily Latin
and Central American b ack gro un ds). The hypothesis was
23
that the Black subjects would draw a larger mother figure
than the father, since matriarchy predominates in many
Black families; the Puerto Rican subjects would draw a
larger father figure, since they usually have a
patriarchal family structure; the low SES children
subjects would omit family members from their drawings
because of sibling rivalries and h ostilities; and married
couples, with no children, would include children in
their family d r a w i n g . All hypotheses were found to be
correct except for the Puerto Rican group, which did not
tend to draw a larger father f i g u r e . Interestingly
enough, the most, extreme scores on the size and detail
measures were obtained by females. This may be
indicative of a greater sensitivity or awareness of sex-
role differences in f e m a l e s .
After the Deren article in 1975, the Draw-A-Family
projective technique disappeared from the lite ra tur e. It
was surprising that a simple projective technique that
was professed to be so helpful in obtaining clinical data
would drop out of the journal literature completely. Its
disappearance might be indicative of the rising use and
popularity of the K-F-D at that t i m e .
The K-F-D
In 1970 Burns and Kaufman published a test called
24
the Kinetic-Family-Drawing (K-F-D)(Burns & Kaufman,
1970). The directions were to draw everyone in your
family, including yourself, doing something and not to
draw cartoon or stick figures. The K-F-D revealed family
dynamics, and personal and interpersonal information.
The addition of an action was found to produce more
meaningful data about the interrelationships within the
family (Burns, 1982). Burns and Kaufman (1972) produced
an interpretative manual defining the actions, styles,
and symbols that are found in the K-F-D.
Burns (1987) believed that one's "style" of
drawing was comparable to one's defense mechanisms. He
stated that his work with children found styles with the
very disturbed and a lack of styles with a normal
population. He believed that the lack of a style seemed
to show a diminished need for defending (Burns & Kaufman,
1972). Burns defined the K-F-D styles as
compartmentalization, encapsulation, lining at the bottom
of the page, underlining individual figures, edging,
lining at the top of the page, and folding
compartmentalization. Definitions of the terms that are
not self-explanatory are provided in chapter 1 above.
Symbols are the variables included in a drawing.
Buck (1948) stressed that symbols could have a unique
25
meaning to the drawer, and that it was important to ask
the drawer about the significance of the symbol rather
than impose a meaning from theory or interpretation.
Burns and Kaufman (1972) stated that "it is generally
agreed that the unconscious speaks through symbols" (p.
v i ) , but they also gave a warning about the ove r
interpretation and misinterpretation of the meaning of
symbols. They believed it is important for the clinician
to consider the totality of the individual when
interpreting symbols, weighing alternate and sometimes
incompatible interpretations. While Burns and Kaufman
(1972) warn about the oversimplification in the use of
symbols, they found, in their experience, that certain
symbols do recur and have consistent association with the
physical history and clinical material of a client
warranting their importance.
Burns and Kaufman (1972) suggested that action is
the motion implied to each family member in the drawing.
The action is what each family member is doing. Actions
can be more passive like sitting, reading, and looking at
the sky, or they can be more active like skating, mowing,
or playing baseball. Burns and Kaufman (1970) stated
that the addition of movement to a drawing should reveal
more about the child's feelings as it relates to their
26
self-concept and also the interpersonal relationships
found in the family.
Burns (1982) reported that when a D-A-P, H-T-P,
and K-F-D were all drawn on the same day, by the same
person, the self tended to be very different in the K-F-D
than the other drawings. He believed, as did Machover
(1949), that the D-A-P represented an expression of the
self in the environment. Burns (1982) felt that perhaps
the self in a K-F-D was an expression of the nuclear
self. The nuclear self represents an expression of the
self formed in early life (Burns, 1982). The D-A-P self
was believed to be similar to the H-T-P person, depicting
how the self conducts itself in the environment, while
the K-F-D self reflected how the person felt about other
family members and the ability to get along with the
other family members, which could be very different from
the environmental self. Burns also stated that when a
mental age was derived from a D-A-P and a K-F-D self, the
K-F-D self score was significantly that of a younger
mental age than the D-A-P self score, suggesting that the
drawings were not similar. Burns (1982) suggests that
the K-F-D self denotes an inner self shaped by the early
years of family life, and the D-A-P and H-T-P person
depicts a layer of personality which covers up the more
27
basic image of the individual.
Research With the K-F-D
O'Brien and Patton (1974) conducted a study of 104
children from two public schools, Grades 4 through 8.
Each subject completed a K-F-D, the Coopersmith Self-
Esteem Inventory, and the Children's Manifest Anxiety
Scale. Teachers completed the School Behavior Checklist
on each child. The study constructed an objective
scoring system for the K-F-D by measuring aspects of the
K-F-D and then using these measurements to predict
anxiety level, self-esteem, and classroom behavior. The
scoring method measured inter-figure distance, figure
size, the presence of barriers between human figures,
activity level, and orientation of each major figure.
The results of all of the instruments were used to come
up with predictive equations for the constructs being
measured. The findings showed that the important
predictor for anxiety was the activity level of the
father. The more action and strength the child
attributed to the father, the more anxiety exhibited by
the child. Also, according to this study, the two most
important variables for the prediction general self-
concept were the activity level of the father and the
direction in which the self figure was facing. The
28
greater the activity level of the father, the less the
general self-concept of the child. The more the self
figure faces away from the other figures or into the
drawing, the greater the general self-concept.
General self-concept refers to the general self
esteem of the child. The child's school and academic
self-concept was predicted by the number of figures in
the drawing. The larger the family, the greater the
school and academic self-concept. School and academic
self-concept refers to the child's self-esteem in how
they see themselves as a student at school. The two most
important predictors for a child's aggressive behavior
were the number of siblings and the relative size of the
child and siblings compared to the size of the parents.
The more siblings placed in the drawing, the less the
aggressive behavior. The larger the children were drawn
in comparison to the parents, the more the aggression in ,
the child.
Elin and Nucho (1979) devised an objective scoring
system to assess a child's self-concept using the K-F-D.
Their scoring system is based on the premise that
positive interaction among family members is essential
for a healthy self-concept. The authors concentrated on
the amount and quality of interaction of family members,
29
the use of space in defining psychological boundaries,
and the emotional tone of the drawing.
Forty-eight K-F-Ds were drawn by fourth- and
fifth-grade students from a public elementary school.
Three persons, who were trained in the scoring of K-F-Ds,
served as judges for the purpose of establishing
reliability. A high inter-scorer reliability was found
with the 48 K - F - D s . The Personal Adjustment Inventory by
Carl Rogers was used for assessing the validity of the
scoring, and the correlation of scores between the
inventory and the drawings was significant when the 48
K-F-Ds were examined. The scoring system was able to
differentiate the drawings made by children with high
and low self-concepts as measured by the Personal
Adjustment Inventory. The authors felt that their study
lends credibility to the K-F-D's sensitivity of
understanding a child's f eel i n g s .
Sims (1974) compared the K-F-D to the Family
Relations Indicator (FRI). The FRI is a standardized
picture projection technique which has actions depicted
on c a r d s . The FRI is designed to investigate the
interrelationships found in a family. Subjects in this
study were 100 emotionally disturbed children ranging
from ages 5 to 15. A K-F-D and FRI were administered to
30
each subject. A scoring method was devised for comparing
the two techniques. Each figure in the K-F-D was scored
as positive, negative, or neutral. The FRI responses
received the same type of scoring. The scores on the two
measures were compared. The drawings and the responses
were significantly related in the area of the subject's
relations with the mother and father, but not for
siblings. Sims (197 4) concluded that the K-F-D was a
valid technique to investigate disturbed parental
r e la ti ons .
McPhee and Wegner (197 6) conducted a study to
verify Burns's definition of styles. They collected 162
drawings from elementary school children, and a panel
of five judges analyzed these drawings. The results
showed that styles were not associated with disturbed
children but were present to a greater extent in the
drawings of adjusted children.
Thompson (1975) found several trends in her study
of the K-F-D of 197 suburban adolescents, ages 13 through
18. Males were drawn engaging in destructive actions
more often than females. Mothers were most often
depicted engaging in constructive actions. Females 13
and 14 years of age drew themselves as the largest member
of the family, while at ages 17 and 18 the father is
31
drawn as the largest figure. Older sisters are most
often drawn as being involved with other family members.
It was believed that males ages 16 or older, who drew
constricted drawings, appeared to have more social
disturbance than other male adolescents whose drawings
were more expansive. Females showed more expansive
drawings at all ages when compared with males.
Reynolds (1978) developed a quick reference guide
for using the K-F-D. The guide is meant for use by
psychologists who are familiar with projective drawing
interpretation and with the K-F-D. Reynolds stated that
the work required to thoroughly interpret projective
drawings is very time-consuming to even the experienced
psychologist. He claimed that there is a savings of the
clinician's time, when using his reference guide, because
the guide will alert the examiner to the more important
aspects of the drawing. While he cautioned that
individual signs should not be interpreted as absolute or
in isolation, and that the best use of the K-F-D is when
viewed in its gestalt, he stated that his reference list
of 32 indicators should serve as a quick reference for
clinical evaluation of the K-F-D. Reynolds said that the
list was devised from his clinical work with emotionally
disturbed children. His list included physical
32
proximity, barriers between figures, relative height of
respondent, fields of force, pencil erasures, arm

I
extensions, description of figure's actions, positions of
figures with respect to safety, missing essential body
parts, rotation of figure, shading or crosshatching,
compartmentalization of figures, folding
compartmentalization, underlining of individual figures,
lining at the bottom of the page, lining at the top of
the page, encapsulation, edged placement of figures,
evasions, number of household members, figure(s) on back
of page, line quality, asymmetric drawing, motionless or
stick figures (all figures), ordering of figures,
buttons, jagged or sharp fingers, toes, teeth, bizarre
figures, excessive attention to details, transparencies,
isolation of self, and anchoring.
Hackbarth, Murphy, and McQuary (1991) designed a
study to examine possible differences in K-F-D scores
between sexually abused children, children who were not
identified as sexually abused, and the mothers of each
group. Thirty children between the ages of 6 and 13, who
were reported as sexually abused in the past 2 years,
made up one group. This group had been sexually abused
by an older family member. The other group comprised 30
children between the ages of 6 and 11 who were considered
33
as possessing normal adjustment by their teachers. All
children and their mothers were asked to draw a K-F-D.
Five counselors rated the K-F-Ds on a scale from 0 to 4.
The higher the score, the more positive the family
environment. The significant results obtained from the
ratings showed that the K-F-D could discriminate between
sexually abused children and the comparison group of
children. The abused children drew less desirable family
situations than their mothers, while these mothers drew
less desirable family situations than the mothers of the
comparison group.
Cho's dissertation (1987) studied the K-F-Ds of
408 Chinese children. A stratified random sample was
obtained of 204 males and 204 females from Taiwan, Grades
4 to 6. A correlation design was used to determine the
validity of the K-F-D using the Semantic Differential
Family Scale measuring self-concept and parent/child
relationship. Cho found that the K-F-D was a useful
instrument to use with Chinese children when their
cultural differences were taken into consideration.
The most valid K-F-D variables for measuring a
child's self-concept appeared to be the facial expression
of self, the relative size of self, and the types of
barriers between father and self. For measuring a
34
child's perception of his relationship with his mother,
the most valid K-F-D variables were the facial
expressions of the father and mother, the eye completion
of the father, and the distance between the father and
the mother. K-F-D variables that measured the
father/child relationship were the facial expression of
the father, the types of barriers between father and
child, and the eye completion of the father.
Chuah's dissertation (1992) studied the K-F-Ds of
Chinese-American children to learn about their family
relationships. She also compared those K-F-Ds to
Caucasian-American children's K-F-Ds to see if
differences existed. The children in the sample were in
Grades 3 to 6, with 146 being Chinese-American children
and 71 Caucasian-American children.
Chuah found that the K-F-Ds of the Chinese-
American children reflected the Chinese culture. Parents
playing with children or families engaged in an activity
together were rare, and the communication level in the
family was low. The most common parental actions found
in these drawings of Chinese-American families were of
the mother cooking and the father reading a paper. Girls
drew themselves doing homework and boys drew themselves
playing ball. The Caucasian-American families were shown
35
as more communicative and interactive, while the actions
of the children were very similar. The girls drew
themselves reading or eating while the boys drew
themselves playing ball. Chuah also found that more
recent immigrant Chinese families seem to have more
Chinese traditional values than Chinese-American families
who have lived in the USA for a longer period of time.
Chuah (1992) suggested that the K-F-D revealed the values
of children and their cultures.
Shaw (1992) conducted a correlation study where
findings from the K-F-D were compared to the findings of
the Semantic Differential Rating Scale (S-D-R-S). The
purpose was to validate the K-F-D as a clinical
instrument for describing the role of self in the family
for Black children and the perceptions of family
relationships. The sample population was 420 Black
children from Grades 1 through 6.
Shaw found that a significant relationship between
the K-F-D and the S-D-R-S existed. The K-F-D was found
to be a valid instrument in learning how Black children
see themselves and their families. Almost half of the
drawings revealed a positive impression of the family,
and nearly one third of the drawings showed the father
missing. The mothers generally were not perceived as the
36
dominant figure in the family, nor were they shown as
threatening or rejecting. Father, mother, and self
figures were portrayed as working independently of each
other. One or two barriers often existed between
figures, implying psychological distancing. Families
were viewed as stable and not stress producing. The
subject's drawings indicated a good self-concept where
they did not feel a need to strive for dominance or
attention in the family. The K-F-D did not appear to be
effective in revealing cooperation, togetherness, or the
importance of religion in the Black families.
Gregory (1992) studied the K-F-Ds and S-D-R-Ss of
52 Native American children and a comparison group of 104
Caucasian children. The purpose of the research was to
validate the K-F-D as a useful instrument for the Native
American population and to compare the K-F-Ds of the two
groups of children. Gregory obtained a significant
correlation between the two instruments to deem the K-F-D
as a valid instrument for use with Native American
children when culture and mainstream societal trends are
considered in the population. Differences existed in the
way each group of children drew their families. The
Native American children's K-F-Ds showed mothers in less
communicating ways and facing their husband less often
37
than the Caucasian children's dr awi ngs . Fathers drawn by
the Caucasian children were more communicative and
cooperative than those drawn by the Native American
ch il d r e n . K-F-D variables for physical characteristics,
position, distance, barriers, actions, and style were the
same for each g r o u p . Gregory's study revealed there were
more similarities than differences between the two groups
of children.
Rodgers (1992) looked at the sexual content of
H-F-Ds and K-F-Ds of children ages 6 through 18. Her
purpose was to define developmental age differences based
on sexual symbols, actions, and themes in the d r a w i n g s .
The sample was composed of children in public and private
schools and residential treatment centers in southwestern
Michigan. There were 560 children from schools and 81
from the treatment c e n t e r . Her results suggested that it
is a normal process of child maturation to include sexual
content in their d r a w i n g s .
Children 6 to 8 years included the highest number
of sexual characteristics in their drawings, children 9
to 15 years included the least, and children 16 years
included more than the 9 to 15 year g r o u p . There
appeared to be little difference between males and
females in the sexual content of their d r a w i n g s . The
38
study also revealed that children who have had past
sexual experiences, as either a victim or perpetrator,
usually have drawings that are very sexual or asexual.
They either include much sexual detail or draw very basic
drawings with little detail and many omissions.
Origination of the H-T-P
The House-Tree-Person drawing was published in
1948 by John N. Buck. Buck used the drawing of a house,
tree, and person as a projective technique to help
understand the inner world of an individual. While he
further developed and refined the test over the years
(Buck, 1949, 1951), Buck found that clients of all ages
were familiar with the common objects of a house, tree,
and person and offered the least amount of resistance to
draw them than other experimental items. "Yet these
common objects are rich with symbolic meaning which
reveal the sensitivity, maturity, efficiency,
flexibility, and the degree of integration of a subject's
personality" (Buck, 1948, p. 319).
The H-T-P is not a test of artistic ability but of
projection. There are two parts to the H-T-P. The first
part is the drawing of the house, tree, and person. The
individual drawing the H-T-P is believed to draw only the
characteristics that they regard as essential. In other
39
words, there is some meaning behind what they have drawn.
It is also significant what they omit from a drawing,
which could reflect an issue that they refuse to deal
with. The examiner must watch the subject as they draw
because it is also important to see if there are any
areas of the drawing that are of unusual concern to them.
This would be shown by excessive erasures, coming back
to the same area of the drawing again and again, and
spending a lot of time in one area of the drawing.
The second part of the H-T-P is the post-drawing
interrogation (PDI) where 68 structured questions are
asked of the d r a w e r . The PDI gives the drawer the
opportunity to define, describe, and interpret what has
been drawn. It is also relevant to note what the drawer
refuses to comment upon. It is postulated that the two
parts of the H-T-P together provide information
concerning the subject's needs, strivings, fears, and
conflicts (Buck, 194 8) . Buck emphasized the importance
of having the subject interpret the drawings because the
standard meaning of certain symbols may not apply to this
particular drawing. An individual may attach unique
meaning to a detail that would be known only through
interrogation of the d r a w i n g s . Buck's scoring system
measures quantitative and qualitative aspects of each
40
drawing, and various emotional indicators identified in
one drawing can be looked for in the other drawings to
confirm or rule out the hypothesis.
Wenck (1977) stated that the subject's home life
and familiar relationships are depicted in the house
drawings, while tree drawings appear to reflect
projection from more unconscious levels of the
personality. Wenck suggested that the person's drawings
are a manifestation of the drawer's perception of himself
or the self he wishes to be. Wenck (1977) claimed that
over 475 emotional indicators have been identified and
defined on the drawings of a house, a tree, and a person.
Interestingly, many suggested that Buck developed
the H-T-P to assess children (Burns & Kaufman, 1972;
Knoff & Prout, 1985; Van Hutton, 1994). However, when
Buck conducted his original quantitative standardization
work on the H-T-P, he used adult subjects and college
students. The H-T-P has since been used with children
and adults. Also available is an H-T-P interpretative
guide (Buck, 1992) that identifies the differences in
drawing characteristics between children and adults. The
guide states that the H-T-P is best suitable for subjects
over 8 years of age to a d u l t .
41
Early Research With the H-T-P
Some of the early research on the H-T-P was
conducted by Emanuel F. Hammer (1953a, 1953b, 1954a).
Hammer (1953a) took the drawings of 20 subjects who were
going to be surgically sterilized and compared them to
the drawings of 20 subjects who were having another type
of operation. The assumption was that the subjects who
were going to be sterilized would have feelings of
castration anxiety that would be reflected through
genital and castration symbolization in their H - T - P s .
Drawings were taken from the subjects before, on the day,
and after the operation. Only emotional indicators that
were not present in the drawings done before the
operation and present after the operation were analyzed.
A checklist of 54 emotional indicators was used to
investigate castration feelings and phallic
sensitization. The results showed significant
statistical differences on 26 of the 54 emotional
indicators that had to do with castration anxiety.
Another study by Hammer (1953b) administered 400
H-T-Ps to Black and White children from Grade 1 to Grade
8. The drawings were interpreted for frustration,
aggression, and hostility. The assumption was that the
Black children would have more frustration, aggression,
42
and hostility indicators on their drawings because of the
prejudice they endure. Each H-T-P was rated on a scale
of aggression from 0-2 by six clinicians who did not
know which race the drawer was. A rating of 0 meant no
aggression, a rating of 1 was considered mild aggression,
and a rating of 2 indicated severe aggression. The
results revealed that the White children scored lower on
frustration, aggression, and hostility than the Black
ch il d r e n .
Hammer (1954a) conducted a study on 64 sex
offenders who were incarcerated in prison. Thirty-one of
them were convicted for raping an adult female, and 33 of
the prisoners were pedophiles who had sexually approached
a female child. The assumption in this study was that
the chronological age of the tree in the H-T-P drawing
would reflect the drawer's psychosexual maturity.
H-T-Ps were drawn by the subjects and the mean
ages projected onto the trees by the rapists and
pedophiles were 24.4 and 10.6 years, respectively. The
mean age of the victims of the rapists was 30.0 and the
mean age of the pedophile's victims was 9.5. The
chronological mean age of the two groups of sex offenders
was 33.6 with a range of 24 to 60 for the rapists and
34.3 with a range of 23 to 63 for the pedophiles.
43
Hammer (1964) stated that the H-T-P had earned a
place along with other projective measures like the
Rorschach and the TAT. The H-T-P's assets are its ease
and quickness of administration, and its yield of rich,
clinical data. Hammer further claimed that he found that
deeper conflicts frequently came into view more easily on
the drawing page than anywhere else. Perhaps this is
what Machover (1953) meant when she stated that
stereotyped defenses are more difficult to hide when
drawing than when speaking. Hammer (1964) explained that
the H-T-P drawings were almost completely unstructured,
totally creative, and non-verbal. Drawing is a primitive
me dium of expression, and is believed to be especially
useful when needing to assess one of low intelligence,
concrete orientation, possessing an underprivileged
socio-cultural background, or one who is extremely
guarded and defensive.
Prout (1983) conducted a national survey of
graduate school trainers and school psychologists to find
out what personality assessment techniques were used.
The H-T-P was frequently used or always used by 63% of
the subjects, and the K-F-D was frequently used or always
used 62% of the time. When asked to rank assessment
tools in order of importance, the H-T-P was ranked ninth
44
and the K-F-D was ranked 12th. In Neale and Rosal's
(1993) research review on projective drawings, they found
that the Human Figure Drawing (H-F-D) seemed to be the
strongest projective technique as far as holding up to
the scrutiny of research s t u d i e s . The H-T-P, K-F-D, and
K-S-D were found to be weaker but usable, particularly
when combined with a concurrent m e a s u r e .
H-T-P Research on Abuse
The H-T-P has been shown to be effective in
picking up emotional indicators of sexual abuse (Blain,
Bergner, Lewis, & Goldstein, 1981; Kaufman & Wohl, 1992;
Van Hutton, 1994;) . Kaufman and Wohl (1992) conducted a
study involving 54 children ages 6 and 7. Eighteen
children were known to the mental health services as
having no sexual abuse, 18 were randomly chosen from the
community, and 18 were sexual abuse victims within the
last 6 m o n t h s . All of the children drew H-T-P and K-F-D
drawings. Four constructs were assessed in the p i c t u r e s :
betrayal, traumatic sexualization, stigmatization, and
powerles sne ss . The results of the study showed
statistical significance for all four c o n s tr uc ts. The
authors stated that both types of drawings, the H-T-P and
the K-F-D, were effective in finding the 18 sexually
abused children from the other subjects.
45
Blain et al. (1981) conducted a study to determine
whether the H-T-P should be used to identify physically
abused children. Drawings of 32 abused children, 32 n on
abused but disturbed children, and 5 well-adjusted
children were interpreted for indicators of abuse. The
results showed that the H-T-P discriminated strongly
between the abused and well-adjusted children; the H-T-P
did not discriminate between abused children and n o n
abused but disturbed c h i l d r e n .
Van Hutton (1994) introduced a new scoring system
using the H-T-P and the D-A-P for screening children for
possible sexual a b u s e . In her book she came up with four
scales to measure the following co nst ru cts : (a)
Preoccupation with sexually relevant concepts; (b)
Aggression and hostility; (c) Withdrawal and guarded
accessibility; and (d) Alertness for danger,
suspiciousness, and lack of t r u s t . These constructs were
based on personality/emotional characteristics that may
be present in a child in varying degrees. Each of the
scale items was based on the cumulative clinical
and empirical literature on projective te c h n i q u e s . The
characteristics in the drawings were based on the work of
Buck (1948), Machover (1949), Hammer (1969), Jolles
(1969), Burns (1987), and Burns and Kaufman (1972) .
46
Van Hutton (1994) designed the scoring system to be
used with children 7 to 11 years of age and prepared a
scoring booklet for recording the characteristics. Van
Hutton's (1994) work provided an objective way of
eliciting information from the drawings without
subjective interpretation.
Palmer et al. (2000) conducted a study to
investigate the use of the House-Tree-Person drawings in
evaluating child sexual abuse. The subjects were 4 7
sexually abused children and 82 non-abused children. The
HTPs were scored with the HTP/Draw-A-Person scoring
booklet devised by Van Hutton (1994) using her four
scales. Emotional indicators defined in each scale were
scored as present or absent. The results of the study
revealed that the Van Hutton scales had fair to poor
inter-scorer reliability and that they were unable to
discriminate between the two groups. The overall score
on the H-T-P was not found to predict group membership
between the abused children and the control group.
H-T-P Research With College Students
Marzolf and Kirchner (1972) conducted an
investigation of the relationship between H-T-P
characteristics and personality traits as defined by the
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). The
47
H-T-P and the 16PF were administered to 760 undergraduate
college students; 306 were men and 454 were women. The
hypothesis of the study stated that the presence or
absence of drawing characteristics (emotional indicators)
would be reflected in 16 PF scores and therefore indicate
certain traits possessed by the student. The results of
the research found a number of significant correlations
between emotional indicators and personality traits, but
according to Marzolf and Kirchner, too low to be used for
predictive purposes.
Marzolf and Kirchner's (1972) most interesting
finding was that a particular emotional indicator could
have a different meaning depending on the gender of the
student. They believed that this did not take
credibility away from the H-T-P, but demonstrated that
what Buck (1948) said about emotional indicators was
true: that no H-T-P sign (emotional indicator) had an
absolute or fixed meaning. Marzolf and Kirchner
further stated that this points to the importance of
inquiry as an essential part of the procedure when
administering an H-T-P.
Abell, Heiberger, and Johnson (1994) conducted an
investigation of two scoring systems: The Goodenough-
Harris scoring system used with the Draw-A-Person (D-A-P)
48
projective technique and Buck's scoring system used with
the H-T-P d r a w i n g s . They wanted to see how close the two
scoring systems would be to the WAIS-R scores for college
students, and also see which scoring system was more
accu r a t e . This study was conducted in order to find out
if the drawings could be a quick and nonverbal estimate
of intelligence.
The subjects were 101 undergraduates, and the
examiners were doctoral students in clinical p s y c h o l o g y .
Scores from the drawings were converted to standard
scores and were compared to the Verbal IQ, Performance
IQ, and Full Scale IQ for each subj ect . Abell et a l .
(1994) compared the two scoring systems using only the
person drawing from the H - T - P . Both scoring systems
yielded significant correlations with the Performance IQ
and the Full Scale IQ but not the Verbal IQ. Buck's
scores were higher than the Goodenough scores in relation
to the WAIS-R scores, but both scoring systems
underestimated the IQ scores. When the house and tree
drawings were added they did not enhance the validity of
the score. It is also important to state that the
Goodenough scoring system was developed on children,
whereas Buck's scoring system was developed on a d u l t s .
The Goodenough scoring system might have had better
49
results if it had been used on the population for which
it was designed.
Groth-Marnat and Roberts (1998) tested 40
undergraduate students to assess the validity of H-F-Ds
and H-T-Ps as measures of self-esteem. The students
were requested to draw an H-F-D, an H-T-P, and to
complete a Coopersmith Self Esteem Inventory and
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. Indicators of
psychological health were taken from an earlier review
of the adult clinical literature (Morena, 1981).
Quantitative total ratings of H-F-D and H-T-P
indicators of psychological health were developed
because the authors found that, in reviewing the
literature, composite ratings of drawings have resulted
in greater validity than single signs. This composite
rating was then compared to the scores of the Coopersmith
and Tennessee tests. The results showed that neither the
H-F-D nor the H-T-P quantitative score was a significant
indicator of self-esteem.
Miscellaneous H-T-P Research
Davis and Hoopes (1975) administered the H-T-P to
80 deaf school children and 80 hearing school children,
ages 7 to 10, to see if the drawings would differentiate
the two groups. Drawings were scored by the presence or
50
absence of items. In assessing the person drawing, the
only item that was found significantly more often in one
group than the other was the shading of the mouth. This
was found in the hearing group. In looking at the tree
drawing, the branch structure was significantly different
between the two groups. The hearing children drew
branches, whereas the deaf children drew a round or oval
perimeter implying branches. There were no significant
differences between the two groups with the house
drawing.
Davis and Hoopes (1975) said that in this study
there was clear evidence that the ear was not drawn
differently by deaf or hearing children, at least at the
ages tested, which showed that some of the clinical
assumptions about body image in young children must be
reconsidered.
Thirty-four transsexual patients were
administered the House-Tree-Person as part of a battery
of psychological testing (Doorbar, 1967). The
transsexuals were biological males who had gone through
hormone treatment and sex-change operations to become
females. This type of testing on transsexual patients
was hoped to shed light on the emotional and social
adjustment that had taken place after the operations.
51
Other tests included in the battery are the Thematic
Apperception Test, the Rorschach, Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory, and Bender Gestalt.
The transsexuals invariably drew a female when
asked to draw a person. The female drawings often
resembled high-fashion clothing models gazing in mirrors
or posing for photographers. A lot of attention was paid
to jewelry, hairstyle, and dress.
The drawings of houses by the transsexuals
exhibited some signs of emotional insecurity, but mainly
depicted the type of living arrangement they would like
to have— a warm, happy, family life with children. The
drawings of the tree fell into two categories. There
were many soft, flowing, weeping willow trees; and there
were also many trees that were cut off by the edge of the
paper or cut off in the actual drawing. When requested
to draw a person of the opposite sex of what was
originally drawn, there were usually simple, stereotyped
drawings of males where little interest was shown in the
depiction. There were a few exceptions to this where the
male figure was drawn with a lot of care and was
identified as a love object. Muscular men or men in
uniform were drawn and were referred to as the type of
man they would like to be with or marry. None of the
52
patients drew a naked person. The author stated that
"before" and "after" testing of the transsexuals should
be conducted to find the extent of the personality
changes that have taken place along with the physical
changes (Doorbar, 1967). Doorbar (1967) claimed that more
research in this area could help with the adjustment
process which the transsexuals go through.
Devore and Fryrear (1976) conducted a study on the
tree drawing of the H-T-P. They were interested in
examining the knothole drawn on a tree trunk in relation
to 22 variables. The 22 variables were age, sex, county
of residence (urban or rural), height, weight, race, IQ
(intelligence quotient measured by the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Ch ild ren ), birth-order position, number of parents in
home, number of same-sex siblings, number of opposite-sex
siblings, total number of siblings minus subject, reading
grade placement, season the drawing was made, and the
MMPI scales of Hypochondriasis, Depression, Hysteria,
Psychopathic Deviancy, Paranoia, Psychasthenia,
Schizophrenia, and Mania.
Subjects were juvenile delinquents who were court
referrals or were entering a state institution for
delinquents. A knothole had been drawn by 228 of the
53
subjects who were the experimental group. The control
group consisted of 7 6 subjects who did not draw a
knothole. The 22 variables were examined by appropriate
statistical methods in an attempt to find differences
between the two groups.
It was found that the two groups differed
significantly on IQ and the Mania scale only. The
results of the study indicated that the subject who drew
a knothole on the tree tended to be more intelligent and
less prone to acting out physically. The authors stated
that perhaps H-T-P emotional indicators may be understood
more fully in light of a particular combination of
personality characteristics that bring about their
expression. The authors said that this assumption should
be seriously investigated to understand more about
drawings and personality characteristics.
The K-H-T-P
Robert C. Burns wrote a book called the Kinetic-
House-Tree-Person Drawings (K-H-T-P) in 1987. He gave
the drawer an 8^s" by 11" paper and asked them to draw a
house, tree, and a whole person, not a cartoon or stick
figure, and include some kind of action. Burns (1987)
stated that while analyzing the house, tree, and person
as separate drawings can provide clinical information,
54
the K-H-T-P would reveal even more dynamics about the
drawer because of the interaction of the house, tree, and
person and the added kinetic component. There would be
one interpretation for the K-H-T-P drawing instead of
three separate interpretations that resulted with the
H-T-P drawings.
This book compared K-H-T-P drawings to the House-
Tree-Person Drawings (H-T-P); showed actions, styles, and
symbols in the K-H-T-P; defined a developmental model for
the drawings of the K-H-T-P; and provided case studies in
individual and family therapy using the K - H - T - P . In his
book, Burns (1987) stated that he collected K-H-T-P
drawings over the last 20 years, and these drawings tell
a story about the drawer that goes beyond what the H-T-P
can provide in clinical d a t a . Burns (1987) believed that
while "something may be gained from viewing the house,
the tree, and the person in isolation, the dynamics
revealed in seeing the H-T-P as a whole increases the
value of the tool" (p. 5).
The case studies and examples provided in Burns's
book were drawn by people ranging in age from 9 to 64,
thus obtaining data on children, adolescents, and adults
with the K-H-T-P. The case studies revealed information
about the drawer based on the house, tree, and person,
55
the action that was drawn, the attachments, sizes,
distances, and order of the figures drawn (Burns, 1987).
Attachments are seen by Burns as suggesting "some
inability of the drawers to separate and untangle various
dimensions of their l i v e s . People who cannot untangle
their lives and who fail to have clear unobstructed paths
seem to be chronically unfulfilled and dissatisfied"
(Burns, 1987, p. 89). Burns also showed an H-T-P by the
same drawer that does not reflect the clinical data that
was received from the K-H-T-P. According to Burns
(1987), adding instructions to include action to the
drawing gave the K-H-T-P's analysis richness and
scorability not otherwise found in the H-T-P (p. 129).
Burns claimed that many of the methods of analysis that
were developed for the Kinetic Family Drawing (K-F-D)
could be applied to the K-H-T-P. Burns further observed
that the drawer of the H-T-P was not given a choice as to
what object they would draw f i r s t . However, with the
K-H-T-P, the drawers are allowed to choose to draw the
objects in the order they please, thus adding to the
interpretation of the d r a w i n g . Burns also stated that by
drawing the three figures separately, one does not allow
for an action or interaction, which he believed to be
critical and clinically rich.
56
I would like to suggest that Burns is not entirely
correct in his summation of the H - T - P . It is possible to
have an action drawn on an H-T-P, it just is not asked
for in the instructions for the drawings. Hammer (1964)
discussed an action drawn under the headings of "traits
and strengths" in his research manual, stating that
"implied movement is a reflection of the person's
flexibility, and walking along easily or relaxed and
playing is a sign of good adjustment" (p. 10). Jolles
(1971) listed the following actions in his catalog
for interpreting the H - T - P : walking easily, running
blindly, controlled running, and movement (meaning
general movement of the house, tree, or p e r s o n ) .
Buck (1948) believed that the absence or presence
of motion and type of movement might have definite
significance. One of the questions on the post-drawing
interrogation (P D I ) of the H-T-P was to ask what the
person was doing. Buck discussed the movement of the
house, tree, and person under the heading of
"P e rsp ec tiv e." He believed that movement of the house
was catastrophic in nature (tipping or collapsing),
regarded as at least pathoformic, and usually
pathological. He also suggested that movement of the
tree was usually a violent motion drawn by psychopathic
57
individuals since it would take a powerful natural
phenomenon or human destructive action to distort the
tree's position, whereas movement of the person need not
be pathoformic or pathological, and can show a person's
feeling of satisfactory adjustment.
Buck (1948) believed that the type of movement
drawn spoke for itself. Although Burns gave much more
emphasis to actions in drawings and concentrated on
specific meanings for each action in his work with the
K-F-D and K-H-T-P (Burns, 1987; Burns & Kaufman, 1972 ),
it is important to note that action or movement was known
as revealing projective data in a drawing as long ago as
1948.
In another projective test, the Rorschach inkblot
test, Exner (1993) stated that any action or movement,
whether it is non-human or human, involves some type of
projection. Piotrowski (1957) and Exner (1974) found that
the type of human movement stated in response to an
inkblot related to types of behavior and interpersonal
effectiveness. Subjects who gave cooperative human-
movement responses were usually more oriented toward more
socially effective behaviors. Subjects who gave
predominately passive, human-movement responses were
prone to be dependent on others. Subjects who gave a
58
high frequency of aggressive human-movement responses
exhibited more verbal and nonverbal aggressive behaviors
and were also prone to have interpersonal relationships
marked by aggressiveness (Exner, 1983).
Burns (1987) defined a developmental model for
interpreting the K-H-T-P drawing. He stated that Abraham
Maslow developed levels of personal growth (Maslow, 1954)
that could be applied to projective drawings. These
levels of growth can also be called a need hierarchy and
are defined as:
Level 1: Belonging to life— desire for life,

survival, safety, rootedness.
Level 2: Belonging to body— acceptance of body;
seeking control of body addictions and
pot e n t i a l s .
Level 3: Belonging to society— search for status,
success, respect, and power.
Level 4: Belonging to self and not-self— self now
defined to include not-self as a pregnant
woman accepts her child; compassion,
nurturing, giving love; meta motivation.
Level 5: Belonging to all living things— giving
and accepting love; self actualization;
sense of good fortune and luck;
creativity; celebration of life. (p. 54)
Burns then broke the first three levels into what
he called approach and avoidance (or aggressive or
passive) types. Depending on how the figure was drawn,
it would be classified into one of these types. For an
example using the house, Burns stated that a house that
was drawn as a fortress or a sanctuary would classify the
59
drawer as an approacher type. A house that was weak and
decaying would mean the drawer was of an avoider type
(Burns, 1987).
Only one reference to the K-H-T-P was found in the
literature, and it was referred to as the Synthetic
House-Tree-Person drawing (Fukunishi, Mikami, & Kikuchi,
1997). This study referenced the Kinetic-House-Tree-
Person book written by Burns. The instructions for the
drawing were to "Draw a house, a tree, and a person on
this paper with some kind of action. Try to draw a whole
person, not a cartoon or stick person. Please do not
write explanations in words." Although referred to by a
different name, from the description it is obvious that
the authors were speaking of the K-T-H-P.
In their study they examined the K-H-T-P drawings
of 589 Japanese college students and compared the results
to the students' scores on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-
20 . The authors wanted to know if the K-H-T-P could
detect a lex it hym ia. Alexithymia refers to a person who
has difficulty in identifying and describing emotions,
reveals a paucity of fantasy life, and possesses
externally oriented t h i n k i n g . The results yielded
students who scored over 61 points on the Toronto
Alexithymia Scale-20 showed two characteristics on the
60
K-H-T-P: Poor relationships between figures and
additional written explanations.
The Kinetic-House-Tree-Person interpretative
manual written by Burns (1987) has samples of an H-T-P
and a K-H-T-P drawn by the same person so they can be
compared. Burns gave an interpretation of each drawing.
Although Dr. Ames referred to the author's
unsubstantiated interpretations in the foreword of the
book, she also stated that the K-H-T-P would be a welcome
addition to test batteries.
Emotional Indicators
The drawings of the H-T-P were originally used to
assess intelligence (Buck, 1948). Buck found that useful
information about the subject's intellectual level could
be gained from inspecting the H-T-P drawings. The
presence or absence of items in the drawings served to
differentiate subjects on the basis of intelligence.
Shortly thereafter it was found that information about
the subject's personality could be derived from the
drawings. Buck attempted to identify and evaluate the
items that differentiate between drawings produced by
persons who did not exhibit major personality
maladjustment and those who did. Buck referred to these
items as non-intellective factors in the drawings.
61
Buck (1948) discovered that the items which best
served to differentiate between maladjusted and adjusted
subjects were details, proportion, perspective, time,
comments (spontaneous and induced), associations, line
quality, self-criticism, attitude, drive, and c o n c e p t .
Buck took each of these general headings and broke them
down into many sub-headings for a more specific analysis
of items. In his analysis Buck found that an item may
have different meanings for different subjects. The non-
intellective items can be evaluated adequately only when
their relationship to the total drawing configuration has
been considered (Buck, 1948).
The population used for Buck's qualitative
standardization study was 150 adult mental patients
grouped by diagnosis. While Buck admits that the
population was not a well-balanced sample, it did serve
to indicate that the H-T-P drawings differed in many
respects when compared to the drawings of adjusted
adults. Buck continued to analyze over 500 H-T-P
drawings of subjects with personality maladjustment to
confirm or reject the findings from the preliminary
study. Buck admitted that his qualitative study of the
H-T-P was more complex and difficult in working with
factors that make up the total personality than his
62
quantitative study of intelligence (Buck, 1948). He
concluded that not all non-intellective factors had been
identified and that his work was not necessarily complete
or necessarily correct.
At about the same time that Buck was conducting
his studies on the H-T-P, Karen Machover was studying
personality projection in the drawing of the human
figure. Machover studied thousands of human figure
drawings in a clinical context, and while some of the
assumptions lack experimental verification, they proved
to be clinically valid (Machover, 1949).
Machover used personality analysis and
psychoanalytical theory to interpret drawings. She
referred to drawings as containing graphic features or
drawing traits. Over a 15-year span, Machover clinically
observed human figure drawings to arrive at specific
meanings for drawing t r a i t s . Patients who drew a
particular graphic feature were carefully studied with
special reference to the context in which the trait
appeared. Machover, like Buck, found different meanings
for the same drawing trait and came to the conclusion
that the interpretation of drawings, as a therapeutic
aid, is most beneficial when all available case history
data are included for the clinician (Machover, 1949).
63
Machover stated that many of her formulations would need
to be changed as the drawing traits were further
explored, validated, and refined. She saw much more work
ahead in interpreting drawings, but felt that she had
offered a solid framework for continued progress
(Machover, 1949).
Koppitz (1968) worked with children's human figure
drawings. She distinguished between drawing
characteristics which reflect a child's age or level of
maturation and those which suggest intrapersonal and
interpersonal attitudes, anxiety, and social-emotional
concerns. Drawing characteristics that are associated
with maturation were called developmental items, and
drawing characteristics that involve social-emotional
concerns were called emotional indicators. Koppitz
defined emotional indicators according to three criteria:
(a) they must have a clinical use and differentiate
between drawings of healthy and emotionally disturbed
subjects, (b) they should occur at a low frequency in the
drawings of healthy subjects (less than 6% of healthy
subje cts ), and (c) their frequency of occurrence should
be independent of age and maturation.
Koppitz (1968) believed that the diagnostic
significance of emotional indicators is increased by
64
considering the presence in the total context of the
drawing rather than looking at them individually.
Koppitz also cautioned clinicians not to make a diagnosis
based on a single emotional indicator. The total
drawing, emotional indicators, other test results, and
case history should all be analyzed before making a
diagn osi s.
At the same time that Koppitz was working with the
human figure drawing, Burns was studying the K-F-D. Burns
had been accumulating and scrutinizing 10,000 K-F-Ds over
a period of 12 years (Burns & Kaufman, 1972). While
Burns defined actions, styles, and symbols and was
interested in the relationships and interactions of the
figures, he also referred to the drawings as containing
drawing variables or features (Burns, 1982; Burns &
Kaufman, 1972). In his interpretative manual for the
K-F-D, an appendix contains drawing features and their
clinical interpretation. At the end of the appendix
Burns stated that the appendix is only a brief
introduction and for a more complete evaluation of human
figures the reader is referred to the works of Machover
(1949, 1953).
When Burns developed the K-H-T-P, his
interpretative manual contained an appendix which listed
65
drawing variables used in projective drawing
interpretation. The variables were listed, defined, and
a reference was provided which showed who developed
the clinical definition. The appendix showed numerous
references to the work of Buck (1948), Machover (1949),
Jolles (1964), Hammer (1969), and Burns and Kaufman
(1972). Burns (1987) stated that many of the methods of
analysis developed in the usage of the K-F-D might be
applied to the K-H-T-P. Brooke (1996) stated that while
the source of some of the interpretations of K-H-T-P
drawing characteristics by Burns is unclear, overall he
draws on the work of previous researchers for
interpretation. It should thus be noted that Burns
combined his findings from his work on the K-F-D with the
work of the other authors mentioned in the appendix to
arrive with a set of variables to interpret the K-H-T-P.
Chapter Summary
The H-T-P has been used by clinicians for over 50
years to elicit information about how an individual
experiences the self in relation to others and to their
home environment (Buck, 1992). The K-H-T-P is virtually
unknown in the literature for projective tec h n i q u e s .
While Burns (1987) claims that the K-H-T-P can add to the
clinical results of the H-T-P, there is no research
substantiate t h i s .
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents a description of the
research, the population, the selection of the sample,
variables, instrumentation, H-T-P reliability, K-H-T-P
reliability, a pilot study, procedures, collection of
the data, data entry, null hypothesis and analysis, and
chapter summary.
Description of the Research
This research was a passive-observational study
because the variables were observed but not manipulated.
The drawings were scanned for the presence of variables
(called emotional in dicators), and the results of the
H-T-P and the K-H-T-P drawings were compared.
Population
The population for this study was university
students, 18 years of age and older. The reason for
using this population was to obtain an adequate
baseline on what the H-T-P drawings and K-H-T-P
drawings look like when drawn by a non-clinical
67
68
group. "Non-clinical" means that the subjects were not
currently seeing a psychologist or counselor. The
participants were screened for any knowledge of the
H-T-P and the K-H-T-P, and did not qualify as a
participant if they were familiar with either test.
Selection of the Sample
Several colleges and universities in Michigan
and Illinois were contacted and asked to participate in
the research. Two universities, one from each state,
were willing to allow the research to be conducted with
their students. One university was a small, rural,
private college with 600 students. The other was a
small, urban, private college with 1,700 students.
Instructors were informed of the research project, and
those who agreed allowed the study to be discussed
during class time to familiarize the students with what
would be expected of them if they chose to participate.
Undergraduates, graduates, and medical students were
included in the study.
Variables
The variables in this study were the emotional
indicators found on the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P drawings.
Emotional indicators for the H-T-P are defined in the
69
House-Tree-Person D r a w i n g s : An Illustrated Diagnostic
Handbook (Wenck, 1977) and A Catalog for the
Qualitative Interpretation of the House-Tree-Person
(H-T-P) (Jolles, 1971). Emotional Indicators on the
K-H-T-P are defined in the Kinetic-House-Tree-Person
Drawings (K-H-T-P) : An Interpretive Manual (Burns,
1987); Actions, Styles and Symbols in Kinetic Family
Drawings (K-F-D) (Burns & Kaufman, 1972); and Kinetic
Dra wing System for Family and S c h o o l : A Handbook (Knoff
& P rou t, 1985).
Some of the emotional indicators defined for the
H-T-P are not used because they are indicators that do
not actually come from the drawings but from what the
subject says about the drawings during the P D I . Since
there was no PDI in this study, these indicators were
not used. Examples of these indicators are: the age of
the tree; the elapsed time since the death of the tree;
and whether the sun was seen in the north or s o u t h .
Several of the emotional indicators defined for the
H-T-P were not used because the indicators were not
drawing characteristics but impressions and
observations made by the e x a m i n e r . Examples of these
indicators are, according to the m a n u a l : fatigue,
marked; psychomotor decrease, persistent; and
70
psychomotor increase, marked.
Instrumentation
Two instruments were used in this s t u d y : The
House-Tree-Person drawings devised by John Buck (194 8)
and the Kinetic-House-Tree-Person drawing developed by
Robert Burns (1987). A complete description of each
instrument is provided in chapter 2.
H-T-P Reliability
Although the H-T-P was established in 1948,
there have been few empirical studies published
concerning the reliability of this technique (Cummings,
1986). Buck did not present reliability and validity
studies to support the use of the H-T-P, and most
research on the H-T-P has not concentrated on
establishing reliability and validity (Brooke, 1996).
Marzolf and Kirchner (1970) found acceptable
test-retest stability at 4 to 6 weeks for the H-T-P.
The sample population was undergraduates, 4 9 males and
87 females. With very few exceptions, there were no
marked changes between the first and second set of
drawings. In another study with college students,
Marzolf and Kirchner (1972) stated that inter-rater
reliability was better than .90 when two raters
71
analyzed the drawings of 306 men and 454 women.
Ouellete (cited in Brooke, 1996) administered
the H-T-P to 33 young deaf adults and had psychologists
rate the drawings on scales measuring aggression,
anxiety, insecurity, impulsiveness, immaturity,
egocentricity, dependency, and feelings of inadequacy.
Inter-rater reliability was established for aggression,
impulsiveness, immaturity, and feelings of inadequacy.
The psychologists' ratings of the drawings were
compared with trained counselors' clinical
observations, validity was established for five scales:
aggression, impulsiveness, immaturity, egocentricity,
and dependency.
Kuhlman and Bieliauskas (1976) found an inter
rater reliability of .88 to .92 when the H-T-Ps of 30
Black and 30 White adolescents were analyzed. Cohen
and Phelps (1985) conducted a two-part study where 89
child victims of incest and 77 children with emotional
problems, ages 4 to 18, drew H-T-Ps. The drawings were
analyzed with an acceptable inter-rater reliability of
.82. The second stage of the study used drawings from
40 subjects in each group. Ten new raters were used to
analyze the drawings and the inter-rater reliability
was .42, which was considerably lower than the first
72
stage of the research study.
Vass (1998) looked at H-T-P drawings from 41
women and 10 men. The subjects were adults ranging in
age from 17 to 46 years, and the mean age was 21.5
years. Three trained and independent raters had an
inter-rater reliability of .57 for the person drawing,
and .53 for both the tree and house drawing. There was
only one reference found for the H-T-P concerning its
properties as a measure of intelligence. The
coefficient of correlation standardized on 120 adults
subjects for the H-T-P and the full Wechier-Bellevue
I.Q. test for 100 cases was .746 (Buros, 1970).
K-H-T-P Reliability
There was no reliability information provided by
Burns for the K-H-T-P. Additionally, there is no such
information found in the literature (Brooke, 1996).
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted to compare the
emotional indicators found on the H-T-P to the K-H-T-P.
It was hoped that conducting a pilot study would reveal
any problems with the way the research was carried out,
so that the problems could be addressed before the
investigation began. Forty adults were the subjects.
73
Each subject was asked to draw the H-T-P and the
K-H-T-P. Early in the study one of the subjects who
was drawing the house on the H-T-P drew many windows
with panes and curtains. When she drew the windows on
her house on the K-H-T-P, she drew only a few squares
for windows. When all of her drawings were completed,
she was asked why she drew her windows so differently
on the two drawings. She replied that she was tired of
drawing by the time she got to the last drawing.
Because of learning of this fatigue factor,
20 of the subjects were asked to draw the H-T-P first
and then the K-H-T-P, and the other 20 subjects were
asked to draw the K-H-T-P first and then the H-T-P.
Changing the order of the drawings was an attempt to
keep the embellishments approximately the same for the
two types of projective drawings.
After scanning all of the drawings there was a
total of 190 emotional indicators present. Each
emotional indicator was totaled for the presence or
absence in each drawing. A contingency table was drawn
up for each emotional indicator, and these tables were
analyzed by the McNemar test (Chi Square for correlated
sa mp l e s ) . Only 15 of the 190 emotional indicators met
the critical value of Chi Square with one degree of
74
freedom. Of these 15, 13 were found on the H-T-P
significantly more frequently than on the K-H-T-P. The
two emotional indicators that were present on the
K-H-T-P significantly more frequently were the action
of a person swinging on a swing, and a swing hanging
from a tree. Across 40 sets of drawings these were the
only emotional indicators that were found more often on
the K-H-T-P than the H-T-P. The drawings of the
figures on the K-H-T-P were usually smaller in order to
get all of the figures on one page. Since the figures
were smaller, there was less embellishment, which leads
to less emotional indicators.
Conducting a small pilot study on 4 0 adults and
finding 190 emotional indicators showed that a study
with a larger sample would evoke a much larger number
of emotional indicators. This raised a concern over
how the large number of indicators would be stored on
the computer. The indicators needed to be loaded in a
format that could be handled by the statistical
software, SPSS. SPSS has restrictions on the size of
the tables it can work with.
Another concern that was revealed from
conducting the pilot study was the enormous amount of
data entry that would be required to load all of the
lb
emotional indicators taken from the drawings. A large
amount of time would be required for this task.
Procedures
All participants signed and dated consent forms
(Appendix A ) , and wrote their age and gender on the
form. Students were allowed to keep a copy of the
consent form if they chose. All questions about the
process were answered before the drawing began. The
drawings were produced in two different ways from
participating students. Either the drawings were drawn
during class time as a group session, or students
scheduled an individual 30-minute meeting to produce
the four drawings. This came about because some
instructors would relinquish some of their class time
to allow for the drawings to be completed in class,
while other instructors allowed only the research to be
announced and meeting times be arranged for the
drawings to be done outside of class time.
Both instruments were administered to each
subject. The H-T-P was given first to half of the
participants, and the K-H-T-P was given first to the
other half of the subjects. This was conducted in case
there was a fatigue factor that would cause less
embellishment of the drawings administered last. Each
76
subject produced four drawings in a row, the only
difference being which drawing they were told to draw
first, either the H-T-P or the K-H-T-P. To administer
the H-T-P, the subject was given several No. 2 pencils
with erasers and an 8h by 11 sheet of plain white paper
presented horizontally. The subject was told: "I want
you to draw a picture of a house. You may draw
any kind of house you wish, and do the best you can.
You may erase as much as you like. You may take as
much time as you need. Just do your best."
The tree drawing page (another 8^ by 11 sheet of
plain white paper) was presented to the subject
vertically after they had completed the house drawing.
The subject was told: "I want you to draw a picture of
a tree. You may draw any kind of tree you wish, and do
the best you can. You may erase as much as you like.
You may take as much time as you need. Just do your
b e s t ."
When this drawing was completed the subject was
given another 8h by 11 sheet of plain white paper
presented vertically. The subject was told, "I want
you to draw a picture of a person. You may draw any
kind of person you wish, and do the best you can. You
may erase as much as you like. You may take as much
77
time as you need. Just do your best."
To administer the Kinetic-House-Tree-Person each
subject was given several No. 2 pencils and an 8^ by 11
sheet of plain white paper. The instructions were to
"Draw a house, a tree and a whole person on this piece
of paper with some kind of action. Try to draw a whole
person, not a cartoon or stick figure."
The time that it took the students to draw the
four drawings ranged from 10 minutes to 1 hour and 20
minutes, but the majority of the participants finished
in 30 minutes. When the drawings were completed, the
students were asked to name the action that was drawn
on their K-H-T-P. This was to ensure that there was no
misinterpretation of identifying the type of action.
Any unrecognizable parts of the drawings were also
questioned so that the students could explain what was
drawn. Again, this was to eliminate misinterpretation.
Collection of the Data
When the drawings were collected, they were
analyzed for the emotional indicators present. Each
indicator found on the drawings was written down and
grouped by the particular drawing it was found in,
either the H-T-P or K-H-T-P. Each set of drawings and
each list of indicators were assigned the same
78
identification number at this time to tie them
together. Table 1 shows an example of this checklist.
Table 1
Checklist for Emotional Indicators

Student No. 1
Emotional
Indicator H-T-P K-H-T-P
Chin omitted X X
Feet unusually small X X
Chimney, prominent X
Chimney, at an angle X
All of the emotional indicators were tallied
across the 204 checklists. It was observed that there
were 499 different emotional indicators that
were drawn throughout the 204 protocols.
Data Entry
Data tables were created to store the findings
from the drawings. Ten tables were defined so that
the table size would be within the maximum size
required by the statistical program that was used.
Each data table had 204 rows (one for each
participant), and two columns for each emotional
79
indicator: One column was for the indicator being
present or absent on the H-T-P; and the second column
was for the indicator being present or absent on the
K-H-T-P. There needed to be enough space to store the
499 indicators that were evoked from the drawings. The
first data table contained the emotional indicators
that were numbered from "1" to "53." The second data
table contained indicators "54" to "106," the third had
"107" to "153," the fourth had "154" to "209," the
fifth had "210 to 257," the sixth had "258" to "299,"
the seventh had "300" to "346," the eighth had "347" to
"395," the ninth had "396" to "448," and the 10th had
"449" to "499." The division of the 499 indicators
into the tables was based on a logical break so that
all indicators of the same type were loaded in the same
table. There were only two possible values that were
loaded into the data tables because the emotional
indicators were dichotomous variables, designated as
"0" for absent from the drawing or "1" for present on
the drawing. Using the limited data shown in Table 1,
that part of the entry would be coded as "11111001."
Null Hypothesis and Analysis
The null hypothesis stated that for each
emotional indicator present there was no significant
80
difference in the frequency of occurrence within the
H-T-P drawings and the K-H-T-P d r a w i n g .
The hypothesis was tested by the correlated Chi
Square statistic (the McNemar test) for each observed
emotional indicator. Each test was made with alpha =
.05.
Chapter Summary
This chapter dealt with the description of the
research, population, selection of the sample,
variables, instrumentation, H-T-P reliability, K-H-T-P
reliability, pilot study, procedures, collection of the
data, data entry, and null hypothesis and a n a l y s i s .
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF THE DATA
This chapter presents information obtained from
the sample studied. It is divided into four parts
beginning with the demographic data of the sample,
emotional indicators found in the study, testing the
hypothesis, and the presentation of the findings.
Demographic Data of the Sample
A total of 204 college students participated in
the research. The participants came from a Michigan
university and an Illinois university. The sample
consisted of 117 females and 87 males. Half of the
students drew the H-T-P first, while the other half drew
the K-H-T-P first. A breakdown of the numbers of males
and females according to the first drawing is provided in
Table 2. The ages of the research participants ranged
from 18 to 60 years with a mean age of 27.6 years. Table
3 shows the age data of the college students divided into
age ranges.
81
82
Table 2
Sample Distribution b y Gender b y First Drawing
H-T-P K-H-T-P Total

Drawn First Drawn First
Males 45 42 87
Females 57 60 117
Total 102 102 204
Table 3
Sample Distribution b y Age Range
Age Range Sample Percentages Cumulative

Size Percentages
18 - 24 95 46.6 4 6.6
25 - 29 48 23.5 70.1
30 - 35 20 09.8 79.9
36 - 60 41 20.1 100. 0
83
Emotional Indicators Found in the Sample
After the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P were administered
to the 204 students, the drawings were then analyzed for
the emotional indicators present in each test. There
were a total of 499 different emotional indicators found,
and a list of these indicators is provided in Appendix B.
Table 4 provides data on the number of the emotional
indicators found on the protocols (the set of four
drawings administered to each participant is referred to
as a p r o t o c o l ) .
Table 4
Data on Emotional Indicators b y Protocol
H-T-P K-H-T-P
Drawn First Drawn First
Smallest No.
Of Emotional
Indicators 25 25
Largest No.
of Emotional
Indicators 65 61
Mean of
Emotional
Indicators 37 .1 40.6
84
There was a concern over the research participants
drawing fewer embellishments on the last drawing because
of fatigue or wanting to hurry to finish. Fewer
embellishments would mean fewer emotional indicators on
the last drawing. I hoped that having half of the
students draw the H-T-P first and the other half of the
students draw the K-H-T-P first would help to keep the
embellishments, and therefore the emotional indicators,
equally drawn for both tests. Table 5 provides data on
the numbers of emotional indicators found and the means
for the individual H-T-P drawings and the individual
K-H-T-P drawings.
Testing the Hypothesis
One null hypothesis was tested in this research
study: There is no significant difference in the
frequency of occurrence of emotional indicators that are
found on the H-T-P drawings and the K-H-T-P drawing.
The hypothesis was tested by the correlated Chi
Square statistic called the McNemar test for each
observed emotional indicator. Each test was made with
alpha = .05. The statistics show that there were 108
emotional indicators that were found significantly more
often on one test than another, so the hypothesis was
rejected.
85
Table 5
Data on Emotional Indicators b y Test
H-T-P K-H-T-P
Drawings Drawing
Smallest No.
of E.I.s when
H-T-P drawn
first 17 10
Smallest No.
of E.I.s when
K-H-T-P drawn
first 16 13
Largest No.
of E.I.s when
H-T-P drawn
first 48 44
Largest No.
of E.I.s when
K-H-T-P drawn
first 42 49
Mean of E.I.s
when H-T-P
drawn first 27. 63 21. 15
Mean of E.I.s
when K-H-T-P
drawn first 26. 93 23. 30
Mean of E.I.s
on total sample 27.28 22.24
Note. E.I. = Emotional Indicator
86
Presentation of the Findings
Appendix B displays the results of the McNemar
test on the 4 99 emotional indicators. The appendix lists
each emotional indicator, states the number of protocols
where the indicator was found on both drawings, states
the number of drawings where the indicator was present
only on the H-T-P drawings, states the number of drawings
where the indicator was present only on the K-H-T-P
drawings, gives the number of protocols where the
indicator was absent on both drawings, and displays the
significance. If the significance of the emotional
indicator was equal to or less than .05, there is an
asterisk placed next to the number for easily spotting
the emotional indicators that are found significantly
more often on one test than another.
The 499 emotional indicators are listed under the
headings of general drawing characteristic, house, tree,
person, actions, styles, and symbols. These headings are
used to categorize emotional indicators in the projective
drawing literature. The headings of general drawing
characteristic, house, tree, and person came from the
work of John Buck with the H-T-P. The headings of
actions, styles, and symbols were developed from the work
of Dr. Robert Burns with the K-F-D. The emotional
87
indicators are alphabetized within each category.
There were 7 4 emotional indicators that were found
significantly more often on the H-T-P than the K-H-T-P,
and 34 emotional indicators that were found significantly
more often on the K-H-T-P than on the H-T-P. Table 6
contains the 74 emotional indicators, their definitions,
the research author of each definition, the year of the
research for that definition, the number of H-T-P
drawings where the indicator was present only on that
test, the number of K-H-T-P drawings where the indicator
was present only on that test, the number of protocols
where the indicator was present on both tests, and the
signif ic anc e.
The emotional indicators in Table 6 are listed
under the headings of general drawing characteristic,
house, tree, person, actions, styles, and symbols. These
headings are used to categorize emotional indicators in
the projective drawing literature. The indicators are
alphabetized within each category. For the presentation
of this chapter, Table 6 is provided with some of the
same information from Appendix B. Appendix B lists all
of the 499 indicators whereas Table 6 refers only to the
74 indicators which were found significantly more often
on the H-T-P drawings than on the K-H-T-P d r a w i n g s .
Table 6
Emotional Indicators Found Significantly More Often on the H-T-P
Emotional Indicator Research Author No. of Times No. of times No. of times p
and Definition and Year Found Only Found Only Found on Both
on H-T-P on K-H-T-P Tests
General Drawing Characteristic
LINES, SKETCHY--Timidity DiLeo, 1973

Need for precision; meticulous Buck, 1948
Expansiveness under stress Handler & Reyher, 1964 19 4 53 .003
PAPER-BASING--Feelings of oo
insecurity; low self-assurance Buck, 1950 00
Dependency Hammer, 1958

Concrete orientation Levy, 1950 33 3 20 .000
PAPER-CHOPPING, BOTTOM OF PAGE —

Depression of mood tone Buck, 1948
Need for support Hammer, 1958 20 0 3 .000
PAPER-TURNING--Aggression
and/or negativistic tendencies Jolles, 1971 29 1 1 .000
PERSPECTIVE, DISTANT VIEW—

Regressive tendencies Barnouw, 1969
Feeling of isolation and/or
rejection; withdrawal Jolles, 1971 24 3 2 .000
Reproduced
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6--Continued.
PLACEMENT OF WHOLE, AT LEFT--

Impulsivity, difficulty in
delaying gratification of needs Bradfield, 1964
Tendency toward extroversion Hammer, 1969
may indicate over-concern
with self Urban, 1963 23 4 5 .001
PLACEMENT OF WHOLE, CENTRAL-- oo

Normality; relative security Lakin, 1956 VO
If exactly in center, suggests
lack of flexibility in
interpersonal relationships as
well as insecurity Buck, 1948 77 4 25 .000
PLACEMENT OF WHOLE, HIGH--

High level of energy, or defenses
compensating for low drive level Machover, 1949
Goal oriented, ambitious
individual Urban, 1963 17 4 4 .007
PLACEMENT OF WHOLE, LOW--

Feelings of inadequacy
or insecurity DiLeo, 1973
Tendency toward depression,
possibly with attitude of
submission Halpern, 1965 25 2 6 .000
Table 6--Continued.
SIZE, UNUSUALLY LARGE--

Tendency to act out aggressive
feelings Zimmerman &
Garfinkle, 1942
Use of repression and other
defenses to compensate for
feelings of inadequacy Wysocki & Whitney,
1965 22 3 0 .000
SPACE, CONSTRICTION BY PAGE-- °

Frustration caused by restricting
environment, associated with
feelings of hostility and desire
to react aggressively Haworth & Rabin, 1960
Feelings of inferiority Johnson, 1973 16 3 4 .004
House
DOUBLEDOOR--Frequently seen in
Adults who want a mate or want
to keep their mate Burns, 1987 23 6 9 .003
FLOWERS, DAISY OR TULIP-LIKE--

Immaturity Buck, 1948
Regression or schizoid
tendencies Hammer, 1954b
Flowers frequently represent
people in the drawer's life Jolles, 1971 35 9 9 .000
HOUSE, LARGE--Frustration,
Possibly due to limiting <x>
environment Buck, 1950 (->
Use of fantasy and/or
compensatory defenses Buck, 1950 35 4 1 .000
ROOF, SHADING OF--Anxiety Buck, 1969

Use of fantasy Jolles, 1971 18 6 4 .023
SHRUBS,DRAWN HAPHAZARDLY OR
ALONG WALKWAY— Implies mild
anxiety at reality level and
conscious attempt to channel
and control anxiety Jolles, 1971 17 6 8 .035
WINDOWS, CURTAINED— Withdrawal

tendencies; reserved
accessibility Hammer, 1958
Consciously controlled
socializing with implied
anxiety Buck, 1950 29 12 27 .012
Table 6--Continued.
WINDOWS, OVAL-- In women,

Liberal nonconformist attitudes Marzolf & Kirchner,
1972 17 1 7 .000
Tree
BARK, CAREFULLY DRAWN--Suggests '■£>

Compulsiveness and over-concern
With environmental interactions Jolles, 1971 13 4 4 .049
BARK, DEPICTED AS EVENLY SPACED

VINE-LIKE VERTICAL LINES—
Schizoid characteristics Hammer, 1954b 10 1 0 .012
BARK, EASILY AND APPROPRIATELY

DRAWN-- Normality Buck, 1966 12 3 2 .035
BARK, INCONSISTENTLY OR
HEAVILY DRAWN--Anxiety Jolles, 1971
Anxiety and hostility Buck, 1966 28 17 .000
BRANCHES, EXTENDING BEYOND

TOP OF PAPER--Emphasis on
satisfaction of fantasies Buck, 1950
Impulsivity Levine & Sapolsky, 1969 19 .001
Table 6— Continued.
BRANCHES, SHADED-- Labile and

Insecure feelings Koch, 1952
Somatization of symptoms;
Agitated depressiveness Levine & Sapolsky, 1969 13 .049
LEAVES, NUMEROUS-- Feigned

productivity with possible
obsessive-compulsiveness Levine & Sapolsky, 1969 11 ,006
to
SCAR ON TRUNK--Representation
of trauma Levine & Galanter, 1953 35 27 000
TREE, LARGE--Over-concern with

self, most notably if tree is
in center of page Levine & Sapolsky, 1969 68 ,000
TREE, LARGE BUT CONTAINED

WITHIN PAGE— Acutely aware of
self in environment. Likely to
attempt to secure satisfaction
in activity rather than fantasy Jolles, 1971 56 .000
TREE, VERY LARGE— Aggressive

tendencies Buck, 1948
Over-compensatory behavior
and/or use of fantasy Buck,1950 19 .000
Table 6--Continued.
Emotional Indicator Research Author No. of Times No. of times No. of times
TRUNK, BROAD WITH DIMINUTIVE

BRANCH STRUCTURE--Debilitating
frustration regarding
satisfaction of basic needs Buck, 1966
Feelings of environmental
constriction and aggressive
tendencies Buck, 1950 ,031
TRUNK, OUTER EDGES DARKLY

DRAWN--Conscious need to
maintain psychological
stability Hammer, 1954b 18 .043
TRUNK, SHADED, ESPECIALLY

IF DEEP--Feelings of
inferiority Buck, 1948
Perhaps psychosomatic
conditions Levine & Sapolsky, 1969 12 ,003
Person
ARMS, BEHIND BACK— Reluctance

regarding openness Urban, 1963
Need for greater control of
aggressive and hostile drives Urban, 1963 11 ,001
ARMS, HELD LIMP AT SIDES--

Ineffective personality Levy, 1950 11 0 1 .001
ARMS, OMITTED— Feelings of

guilt and inadequacy;
indication of withdrawal Kokonis, 1972
If in drawing of opposite
sex, possible feeling of
heterosexual rejection Machover, 1949 16 1 0 .000 vo
CJI
ARMS, RELAXED--Dealing
positively with interpersonal
relationships Jolles, 1971 13 3 5 .021
BELT BUCKLE, EMPHASIS OF—

Dependent tendencies Machover, 1951 40 7 4 .000
BREASTS, EMPHASIZED--
Psychosexual and emotional
immaturity in males Levy, 1958
Probable strong oral and
maternal dependency in males Urban, 1963
Identification with a dominant
and productive mother in
females Machover, 1951
Possible exhibition or
narcissism in females McElhaney, 1969 13 0 2 .000
Table 6--Continued.
BREASTS, OMMISSION OF--By

females, feelings of immaturity Brown, 1958
Uncharitable feelings toward
children Machover, 1949
Possible schizophrenia Burton & Sjoberg, 1964 24 10 22 .026
BUTTONS, EMPHASIZED OR
NUMEROUS— Immaturity Schildkrout, Shenker, &
Sonnenblick, 1972
When drawn compulsively,
cn
regression Wolk, 1969
When midline is emphasized,
preoccupation with self and/or
somatic disorders is suspected Urban, 1963 31 4 4 .000
EARRINGS, EMPHASIS ON—

Possibility of exhibitionistic
tendencies Levy, 1958
Paranoid feelings McElhaney, 1969 8 0 1 .008
EARS, AS QUESTION MARKS--

Possible paranoid conditions McElhaney, 1969 18 2 3 .000
EARS, EMPHASIZED--Possible
Auditory handicap with
Associated concern Levy, 1958
accented sensitivity to
criticism Machover, 1951
Ideas of reference Landisberg, 1969
Auditory hallucinations Deabler, 1969 15 1 6 .001
EYEBROWS, ELABORATE
—j
TREATMENT OF-Indication that
uninhibited behavior is
distasteful; possibility of
over-grooming Machover, 1949 29 4 8 .000
EYELASHES, IN DETAIL— If
drawn by males, possible
homosexual tendencies DiLeo, 1973 15 0 7 .000
EYES, PERIPHERY REINFORCED—

Possible paranoia Reznikoff & Nicholas,
1958 10 2 3 .039
EYES, UNUSUALLY LARGE OR

REINFORCED— Suspicion, perhaps
paranoid tendencies Schildkrout, Shenker,
& Sonnenblick, 1972
Anxiety Machover, 1958
Overly sensitive to social
opinion Machover, 1958 41 7 22 .000
Table 6--Continued.
FEET, OMITTED— Feeling that

environment is too limiting,
with dependency Evans & Marmorston,1963 44 9 12 .000
FINGERS, LONG AND SPIKE-LIKE-

Primitive aggressive
tendencies Goldstein & Rawn, 1957
Associated with paranoid
processes, psychosomatic
disorders, and hypertensiveness Shneidman, 1958 7 0 1 .016 00
HAIR, EMPHASIS UPON-Expression

of virility strivings and over
concern with sexual matters Gilbert, 1969
Attempt to compensate for
feelings of sexual inadequacy
or impotency Levy, 1950 53 15 44 .000
HANDS, CONCEALED IN POCKETS

Occasionally represents
compulsive masturbatory
activity DiLeo, 1973
Associated with loafing or
delinquent behavior McElhaney, 1969 8 0 0 .008
HANDS, COVERING PELVIC AREA-

Possible self-stimulatory
practices Hammer, 1965
Fear of sexual advances in
female drawing Urban, 1963 11 1 0 .006
Table 6--Continued.
HANDS, UNUSUALLY SMALL-

Insecurity DiLeo, 1973
Helplessness Hammer, 1954b 10 2 2 .039
HEAD, UNUSUALLY LARGE-

Grandiose ego-expansive
tendencies Levy, 1958
If very large, paranoia and to
narcissism are suggested Machover, 1951 >£>
Over-intellectual aspirations Levy, 1958
Fantasy is basic source of
satisfaction Urban, 1963 10 0 2 .002
HEAD, WITHOUT BODY-Possible

schizophrenic condition Baldwin, 1964 13 0 0 .000
LEGS, CUT OFF BY BOTTOM OF

PAPER— Individual may feel that
autonomy has been lost Buck, 1966 23 2 2 .000
LEGS, OMITTED— Feeling of being

unable to move Michal-Smith &
Morgenstern, 1969 17 2 0 .001
LIPS, FULL— Possibly

narcissistic, sensual, or
dependent individual Machover, 1949 35 4 6 .000
Table 6--Continued.
LIPS, FULL IN MALE FIGURE—

By males, effeminate
tendencies; if with lipstick,
homosexual tendencies Machover, 1949 15 2 0 .002
MIDLINE, EMPHASIZED— Possible

low self-esteem, accompanied
inferiority feelings Bodwin & Bruck, 1960 56 30 70 .007
100
MOUTH, OVEREMPHASIS UPON-
Psychosexual deviations,
fixations, immaturity. Often
expressive of guilt feelings
and/or anxiety occasioned by
oral-erotic or oral-aggressive
impulses Jolles, 1971 17 3 4 .003
NOSE, FAINT, SHADED, OR

TRUNCATED— If by males, fear of
castration, perhaps
autoeroticism Hammer, 1953a
If by females, penis envy and
hostile feelings toward males Machover, 1949 28 6 14 .000
PERSON FACING FORWARI>-Possible

indication of accessibility or
frankness Machover, 1949 82 13 82 .000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Table 6--Continued.
POCKETS, EMPHASIZED— In males,

dependency and infantilism Levy, 1958
Affectional needs unsatisfied Machover, 1958
In females, emphasis upon
independence Urban, 1963 22 ,002
POSTURE, RELAXED AND STANDING—

Normality Urban, 1963 73 14 45 .000
101
POSTURE, RIGID— Possible
anxiety, may result from
attempt at careful impulse
and fantasy control Gilbert, 1969 21 3 7 .000
SHOES, EMPHASIZED— In males,

involutional syndrome, perhaps
with impotency overtones Machover, 194 9
If with numerous details,
suggestion of an obsessive
and feminine individual Levine & Sapolsky, 1969 33 8 10 .000
SHOULDERS, EMPHASIZED-By
females, possible masculine
protest Urban, 1963 15 2 1 .002
SHOULDERS, OMITTED-Possible
schizophrenia Burton & Sjoberg, 1964
Brain damaged conditions Holzberg & Wexler, 1950 15 4 1 .019
Table ^--Continued.
SHOULDERS, VERY BROAD-

Tendency to act-out,
possibility of aggression or
uncertainty about sexual
feelings, may be an attempt
at compensation Levy, 1950 7 0 0 .016
STANCE, BROAD— Possible
102
acting-out tendencies
spawned by defiance of
authority and/or insecurity Hammer, 1969
When in the middle of the page,
possible assertive potential Shneidman, 1958 26 2 3 .000
TEETH, PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED—

Aggression or sadistic
tendencies Halpern, 1965
Frequently seen in drawings of
schizophrenics, hysterics, and
mental defectives, though
occasionally in drawings of
aggressive normals Hammer, 1958 15 1 0 .001
TROUSER FLY, EMPHASIZED—

concern or conflict regarding
sexuality McElhaney, 1969 23 7 2 .006
TRUNK, OMITTED-Organicity or
mental retardation Mundy, 1972
Adjustment to school is poor Koppitz, 1968
Denial of body drives Jolles, 1971 15 0 0 .000
103
104
There were 34 emotional indicators that were found
significantly more often on the K-H-T-P drawings than on
the H-T-P drawings. Table 7 contains the 34 emotional
indicators, their definitions, the research author for
each definition, the year of the research for the
definition, the number of H-T-P drawings where the
indicator was present only on that test, the number of
K-H-T-P drawings where the indicator was present only on
that test, the number of protocols where the indicator
was present on both tests, and the significance.
The emotional indicators in Table 7 are listed
under the headings of general drawing characteristic,
house, tree, person, actions, styles, and symbols. These
headings are used to categorize emotional indicators in
the projective drawing literature. The emotional
indicators are listed in alphabetical order within each
category.
For the presentation of this chapter, Table 7
provides some of the same information found in Appendix
B. Appendix B lists all of the 499 indicators that were
found in all of the drawings whereas Table 7 refers only
to the 34 indicators which were found significantly more
often on the K-H-T-P drawings than on the H-T-P drawings.
Table 7
Emotional Indicators Found Significantly More Often on the K-H-T-P
General Drawing Characteristic
CLOUDS—Generalized anxiety Jacks, 1969

Anxiety is something hanging
over one's head. The number
of clouds is often related to
105
the number of people in the
family or love triangle Burns, 1987 17 000
SIZE, UNUSUALLY SMALL-Low

self-concept Mundy, 1972
Anxiety Waehner, 1946
Withdrawal tendencies Gilbert, 1969 48 000
House
CHIMNEY, OMITTED-Lack of
interpersonal warmth in the
home Mursell,1969
Difficulty with male sexuality,
but less serious than
prominence of chimney Buck, 1950 22 46 66 .005
Table 1--Continued.
HOUSE, SMALL-Tendency to
withdraw Hammer, 1958
Feelings of inadequacy Buck, 1950 6 25 14 .001
TREES, DRAWN WITH HOUSE-

Strong needs for reliance
on others; dependency Levine & Sapolsky,
1969
Often represent specific
106
people in the subject's
family Buck, 1948 0 178 26 .000
Tree
CROWN, CLOUD-LIKE— Use of

fantasy with avoidance of
reality Koch, 1952
Low energy level Koch, 1952 14 34 59 .006
ROOTS, OMITTED WITHOUT

BASELINE— Inadequacy feelings;
insecurity Michal & Morgenstern,
1969 14 29 32 .033
TREE, SMALL— Somewhat withdrawn

individual with feelings of
inadequacy Buck, 1948 2 33 7 .000
Table 7--Continued.
Person
EARS, OMITTED— Suggests auditory

hallucinations; sometimes seen
in well-adjusted mental
defectives Jolles, 1971 9 28 8 .003
EYES, OMITTED— Ineffective,
107
undiscerning personality Gurvitz, 1951
Possible visual hallucinations Buck, 1950
Schizophrenia Deabler, 1969
Possible voyeurism Levy, 1950 0 12 1 .000
HAND, MITTEN-LIKE—Aggression,
currently repressed or
suppressed Buck, 1950
Possible regressive tendencies McElhaney, 1969 1 18 4 .000
INCLUSION OF EXTRA FIGURES—

Disruptive influence protruding
into the family Reynolds, 1978
Closeness within the extended
family Reynolds, 1978 1 22 3 .000
MOUTH, GRINNING, DEPICTED BY

WIDE, UPTURNED LINE-Possible
need to maintain fagade of
congeniality Urban, 1963 9 23 8 .022
Table 7--Continued.
MOUTH, OMITTED-Guilt regarding

oral aggressive behavior Machover, 1949
Depression Koppitz, 1966 12 000
MOVEMENT, NON-VIOLENT-Possible
flexibility and normality; often
associated with bright, normal,
individuals Jacks, 1969 185 .000
108
NOSE, OMITTED— Possible feelings
of castration Schildkrout, Shenker,
& Sonnenblick, 1972 24 000
POSTURE, SEATED— Possible

significant insecurity Allen, 1958 26 ,001
PROFILE, AMBIVALENT— Uneasy in

social situations Urban, 1963
Guilt feelings; possible
dishonesty Machover, 194 9 10 ,002
PROFILE, COMPLETE— Reluctance

to face others; evasive Buck, 1969
Possible maladjustive
withdrawal Exner, 1962
Interpersonal relationships
tend to be reserved Buck,1950 57 ,000
Table 1--Continued.
Emotional Indicator Research Author No. of Times No. of times No. of times
Actions
JUMPING—When jumping rope, a

subtle form of isolation Burns & Kaufman, 1972
When just jumping, a common
action Burns & Kaufman, 1972 12 000
109
KITE FLYING— Desire to be free
and break out of a restrictive
environment Burns & Kaufman, 1972 .008
MOWING—Associated with a
"cutting" and controlling
personality Burns & Kaufman, 1972 10 ,002
PICKING— Not defined in the

literature 7 0 .016
PLAYING ALONE—A common action Burns & Kaufman, 1972 13 0 ,000
STANDING—A common action Burns & Kaufman, 1972 8 0 .008
SWINGING—A common action Burns & Kaufman, 1972 19 1 ,000
WALKING—A common action Burns & Kaufman, 1972 18 0 .000

Styles
ATTACHMENT OF 2 FIGURES-Suggests
some inability of the individual
to untangle and separate the
different dimensions of their Burns & Kaufman, 1972 6 44 0 .000
lives
110
ENCAPSULATION— Suggests a need to
isolate or remove a threatening
person Reynolds, 1978 0 23 1 .000
Symbols
BALL— Represents energy or force Burns & Kaufman, 1972 0 22 0 .000
JUMP ROPE— Represents protection

from psychological interaction Burns & Kaufman, 1972 0 10 0 .002
KITE— Represents an escape Burns & Kaufman, 1972 0 8 0 .008

1 Table 7--Continued.
LAWNMOWER—Associated with self-

competitive feelings, striving
for dominance, and attempting
to control. When belonging to
another, it represents fear or
feelings of threat or
competition from a dominant
individual Burns & Kaufman, 1972 ,004
111
SWING IN TREE— In women,
anxiety-free state; liberal
attitude with willingness to
experiment Marzolf & Kirchner, 1972
A form of encapsulation if a
person is sitting in the swing Burns & Kaufman, 1972 19 ,003
112
In looking at the data, Tables 6 and 7 reveal that
the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P have evoked different emotional
indicators from the research participants. There were a
total of 108 emotional indicators that were significantly
found more often on one test than the other. The H-T-P
revealed 74 indicators significantly found more often on
it than on the K-H-T-P. The K-H-T-P revealed 34
indicators that were significantly found more often on it
than on the H-T-P. The H-T-P elicited more than twice as
many indicators as the K-H-T-P.
Table 8 provides a summary of the number of
emotional indicators from Tables 6 and 7 grouped under
the category to which the indicators belong. In looking
at Table 8, the H-T-P had 9 more indicators than the K-H-
T-P under the heading of general drawing characteristic,
4 more indicators under the heading of house, 11 more
under the heading of tree, and 31 more under the heading
of person. The K-H-T-P had eight actions, two styles,
and five symbols while the H-T-P has none in these
categories. Table 8 provides a comparison of the numbers
of emotional indicators by test by category, and shows
where the tests are strongest and weakest in producing
emotional ind icators.
113
Table 8
Summary of Emotional Indicators by Category
Found Significantly Found Significantly

More Often on H-T-P More Often on K-H-T-P
General
Drawing
Characteristic 11 2
House 7 3
Tree 14 3
Person 42 11
Actions 0 8
Styles 0 2
Symbols 0 5
Total E. I.s 74 34
Note. E.I. = Emotional Indicator
114
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the demographic data of the
sample, the emotional indicators found in the sample,
testing the hypothesis, and the presentation of the
fi ndings.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary, discussion of
the findings, implications of the study, and
recommendations for further research. The summary
briefly describes the statement of the problem, an
overview of related research, purpose of the study,
methodology, sampling, instrumentation, the research
question, hypothesis, and results of the hypothesis
testing.
Summary
Statement of the Problem
The Draw-A-Family drawing is a projective test
that provides the clinician with information about the
relationships in a family, how the drawer sees himself
or herself in the family, and personality traits and
tendencies of the drawer. The instructions given are to
draw everyone in the family. This test has been in
existence since 1951.
115
116
In 1970 Robert Burns produced a projective test
called the Kinetic-Family-Drawing (K-F-D). He used
the Draw-A-Family drawing as a basis, but he added
instructions to draw every person in the family doing
something. Burns believed that the addition of actions
would add valuable projective data to the test. The
K-F-D has become a very popular projective test for
evoking information about a family.
In 1987 Robert Burns published a book (1987)
where he stated that he has taken the House-Tree-Person
drawing (H-T-P), developed in 1948 by John Buck, and has
improved it by having all of the figures drawn on one
page and has changed the instructions to include an
action. He calls this the Kinetic-House-Tree-Person
drawing (K-H-T-P). The H-T-P instructions have a house,
tree, and person, each drawn on a separate page. The
H-T-P has been used by clinicians for years as a
projective test for obtaining clinical data about the
drawer.
Burns does not provide any research on the
K-H-T-P in his book (1987), nor has the test appeared in
the projective literature except for one small
reference. This study looks at which test is the
117
better o n e : the H-T-P or the K-H-T-P with regard to
eliciting emotional indicators in the drawings.
Overview of Related Literature
In 1948, John Buck developed the House-Tree-
Person drawing (Buck, 1948). It was originally meant to
be a test of intelligence, but Buck soon found that
there were non-intellective factors that gave
information about the subject's personality. Buck
investigated and researched the non-intellective factors
that best differentiated between maladjusted and
adjusted su bje ct s. Buck further developed and refined
the test (Buck, 194 9, 1951), but he did not concern
himself with reliability and validity studies (Brooke,
1996). Others who have conducted this type of study
have found inter-rater reliability to be as low as .42
and as high as .92 (Kuhlman & Bieliauskas, 1976; Marzolf
& Kirchner, 1972; Vass, 1998). Acceptable test-retest
stability at 4 to 6 weeks was found by Marzolf and
Kirchner (1970).
At the same time that Buck was conducting his
work on the H-T-P, Wilfred Hulse was using the Draw-A-
Family drawing to obtain information about children and
their f am ili es. Hulse stated the drawing gave
118
conscious and unconscious data that would not be heard
in a clinical interview (Hulse, 1951, 1952). This was
also the same time that Karen Machover was studying
personality projection in the human figure drawing.
Machover referred to the drawings as having graphic
features or drawing traits, and she spent over 15 years
to derive specific meanings to these traits (Machover,
1949). These traits and specific meanings are called
emotional indicators and definitions in this research.
Elizabeth Koppitz (1968) also worked with the
human figure drawing. She distinguished between drawing
characteristics that reflect a child's level of
maturation and social-emotional concerns. She called
the drawing characteristics associated with maturation
as developmental items, and those denoting social-
emotional concerns were called emotional indicators.
While Koppitz was conducting her work, Robert
Burns was developing the Kinetic-Family-Drawing. Burns
took the Draw-A-Family drawing and changed the
instructions to include every family member doing
something (Burns & Kaufman, 1970) . Burns defined
actions, styles, and symbols from the drawings and was
interested in the projective material from the
119
relationships and interactions of the figures. These
new components in the drawings were found to produce
meaningful information about the interrelationships of
the family.
A review of the research on projective drawings
in 1993 found that the Human Figure Drawing proved to be
the strongest projective technique. The H-T-P, K-F-D,
and K-S-D were found to be weaker but usable
particularly when combined with a concurrent measure
(Neale & Rosal, 1993). A national survey of graduate
school trainers and school psychologists found that the
H-T-P was frequently used or always used by 63% of the
subjects, and the K-F-D was frequently used or always
used by 62% of the subjects (Prout, 1983).
In 1987 Robert Burns devised a projective test
called the Kinetic-House-Tree-Person drawing (Burns,
1987). Burns took the H-T-P drawing and changed the
instructions to have all of the figures drawn on the
same page and to include an action. Burns stated that
the K-H-T-P would provide a better clinical picture of
the subject than the H-T-P because of his improvements.
There was no reliability or validity studies provided by
Burns, and there was no such information found in the
120
literature (Brooke, 1996). To date there is very little
known about the K-H-T-P drawing and Burns's claim of its
superiority to the H-T-P.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to compare the H-T-P
with the K-H-T-P for the emotional indicators found on
the tests. The number of emotional indicators would be
an indication of the effectiveness of each test in
eliciting clinical information from the drawer.
Methodology
This research was a passive-observational study
where the variables were observed and not manipulated.
The drawings were analyzed for the presence of variables
called emotional indicators. There was no intervention
or control of the independent variables in the study.
Sampling
The subjects in the study were 204 college
students, 18 years of age and over, from two
universities: one from Michigan and one from Illinois.
The students were non-clinical, meaning that they were
not currently seeing a clinician for therapy. The
121
students were screened for any knowledge of the H-T-P
and the K-H-T-P and did not qualify as a participant if
they were familiar with either test.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation for the study was the House-
Tree-Person projective test devised by John Buck and the
Kinetic-House-Tree-Person projective test developed by
Robert Burns. The independent variables were the
emotional indicators found on the drawings. The
variables were dichotomous; their values were either "0"
for being absent from the drawing or ” 1" for being
present on the drawing. There were a total of 499
variables that were found on the drawings, and they are
listed in Appendix B.
Research Question
This study sought to answer the following
research question:
Does the occurrence of emotional indicators found
on the H-T-P drawings differ significantly from those
found on the K-H-T-P drawing?
122
Hypothesis
The hypothesis of this research states: There is
no significant difference in the frequency of occurrence
of emotional indicators that are found in the H-T-P
drawings and the K-H-T-P drawings.
Results of the Hypothesis

Testing
With 108 out of 499 variables being found
significantly more often on one test than the other, the
null hypothesis is rejected.
The results of the study confirm that the
emotional indicators found on the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P
drawings do differ significantly. Not only do they
differ, but the categories of where the emotional
indicators are listed also differ.
The results showed that there were 74 emotional
indicators that were found significantly more often on
the H-T-P than the K-H-T-P, and there were 34 emotional
indicators that were found significantly more often on
the K-H-T-P than the H-T-P. The H-T-P elicited
indicators under the categories of general drawing
characteristics, house, tree, and person. The K-H-T-P
123
evoked indicators under those categories and also under
actions, styles, and s y m b o l s . The H-T-P drawings
produced more than twice as many indicators as the
K-H-T-P drawings.
The H-T-P had 9 more indicators than the K-H-T-P
under the heading of general drawing characteristic, 4
more indicators under the heading of house, 11 more
under the heading of tree, and 31 more under the heading
of person. The K-H-T-P had eight actions, two styles,
and five symbols while the H-T-P had no indictors in
these categories.
Discussion
The Test Comparison
The null hypothesis has been rejected. The two
tests evoked different emotional indicators. The H-T-P
had twice as many indicators as the K-H-T-P, and the
K-H-T-P produced actions, styles, and symbols while the
H-T-P did n o t . Each test has been shown to have merit,
but which will give a better clinical picture? Do the
actions, styles, and symbols (and the other indicators)
found on the K-H-T-P give more clinical information than
all of the indicators found on the H-T-P?
124
In conducting this research both tests had
components taken away. The H-T-P was missing the PDI,
which added much more information to the drawing. There
was no clinical interview or history gathered on the
subjects that could shed light on the personal meanings
of the actions, styles, symbols, and other indicators
which Burns had done with his examples in his book on
the K-H-T-P.
Even though the two tests are very similar in
name, they appear to be very dissimilar when comparing
the two. This research seemed to be trying to compare
an apple with an orange. In order to put the two tests
on an equal footing for statistical purposes, they each
had to have their "peels" removed (to continue the
analogy) so that they could look alike as much as
possible. But the "peels" contribute to their
therapeutic value, each in their own way. It was hoped
that there was no discredit paid to either test in doing
this, knowing that it would change the two test's
results.
Hammer (1997) stated that as far back as the
1950s, he and John Buck, the author of the H-T-P,
attempted to have the house, tree, and person drawn on
125
one page. Hammer said that they found the
relationship of the figures adding to the clinical
data, but they also found that they lost the larger and
more detailed figures when the figures were drawn on
separate pages. They felt that the losses outweighed
the gains and kept the test instructions to have the
figures drawn on separate pages.
When Burns originated the K-F-D from the Draw-A-
Family drawing, the addition of having everyone in the
family doing something seemed to make a lot of sense. A
family of people would include a lot of actions, or at
least two, and this would add projective data by what is
being done, who is doing it, and with whom they are
in te rac tin g.
But going from the H-T-P to the K-H-T-P does lend
itself to actions like the other test did. It is most
likely that the tree and house would not be performing
the action. The tree could sway or tip over, and the
house could lean or collapse, but it is most likely that
the person would perform the action. There is not a
family but one person, so there is one action. This
person can interact with the house and tree, but there
is not a family interacting. The action and interaction
126
can add to the therapeutic value of the drawing, but not
to the extent that they have added therapeutic value on
the K-F-D. Perhaps this is why we do not find the
K-H-T-P in the literature like we do with the K-F-D.
Hammer (1997) stated that when speaking about the
basic rationale of projective techniques, it may be
better to leave the option of projection of movement
open to the drawer. When there is no structuring from
the examiner, the drawer can make a static person or one
involved in an action, which would be considered to be
richer in projective meaning. That is true. However,
as seen in this study, most subjects do not include an
action on the H-T-P. There were only 10 subjects who
did, so when instructing the subject to draw an action,
at least there will be one provided.
Findings on the H-T-P
The list of emotional indicators found
significantly more often on the H-T-P than on the
K-H-T-P shows that there are 11 indicators under the
heading of general drawing characteristic, 7 under
house, 14 under tree, 42 under person, and no
indicators under actions, styles, and symbols. More
127
than 75% of the indicators for the H-T-P came from the
person and tree drawing combined. There were indicators
having to do with the person's arms, belt, breasts,
buttons, earrings, ears, eyebrows, eyelashes, eyes,
feet, fingers, hair, hands, head, legs, lips, midline,
mouth, nose, pockets, posture, shoes, shoulders, stance,
teeth, trouser fly, and trunk. It appears that there is
a wealth of information provided by the person d r a w i n g .
The tree drawing has indicators that have to do
with the tree's bark, branches, leaves, size, and trunk.
There is not nearly as much information provided in the
tree drawing when compared to the person d r a w i n g .
There are many different definitions showing
various personality traits and tendencies. But one
definition that showed itself several times is that of
ag g r e s s i o n . Aggression is defined for the indicators
of "paper, tu rning"; "size, unusually l ar ge" ; "space,
constriction by p a g e " ; "tree, very large"; "arms, behind
back"; "fingers, long and spike-like"; "shoulders, very
broad"; and "teeth, prominently displayed." Three of
these eight emotional indicators have to do with a large
drawing.
There are several emotional indicators that need
128
a fairly large figure so that the indicators can be
drawn. A few examples of these are "bark, depicted by
evenly spaced vine-like vertical lines"; "branches,
shaded"; "leaves, n u m ero us" ; "eyebrows, elaborate
treatment of"; "eyelashes, in detail"; "eyes, periphery
reinforced"; "lips, full"; "lips, full in male figure";
and "trouser fly emphasized," The H-T-P would lend
itself to these types of indicators more than the
K-H-T-P because of the figures being drawn on a separate
p a g e . There is more room for a larger figure and more
e m bel lishments.
In summary, 74 emotional indicators were found
significantly more often on the H-T-P than on the
K-H-T-P. There were emotional indicators present in the
categories of general drawing characteristics, h o u s e ,
tree, and person; and there were no indicators in the
categories of actions, styles, and s y m bol s. There were
varied definitions of the emotional indicators showing
many different personality traits, but the most common
trait found was aggression.
Findings on the K-H-T-P
The list of the emotional indicators that were
129
found more often on the K-H-T-P than the H-T-P shows
that there were 2 indicators under the heading of
general drawing characteristics, 3 were under house, 3
under tree, 11 under person, 8 under actions, 2 under
styles, and 5 under s y m bol s. The definitions of the
emotional indicators are varied, and the one trait that
showed up the most was "withdrawal," which was the
definition of four in di cat ors : "house, small"; "tree,
small"; "size, unusually s m a l l " ; and "profile,
c o mp l e t e ."
One of the reasons for the different emotional
indicators showing up on the two tests has to do with
the dissimilarity of the directions of the two t e s t s .
The K-H-T-P directions ask that an action be drawn
whereas the H-T-P does n o t . Besides the eight a c t i ons ,
these directions also caused the five symbols to be
produced on d r a w i n g s . This is because every symbol is
connected to an a c t i o n . For example, the action "lawn
mowing" has a lawnmower in the drawing. The action
"playing alone" has a ball d r a w n . One of the
styles called "encapsulation" was also produced from
two a c t i o n s : The person jumping rope is encapsulated
with the jump rope, and the person sitting on a swing is
130
encapsulated with the ropes of the swing. Burns (1987)
had said’ that an action would add clinical value to the
H-T-P, and in summary, asking for an action to be drawn
caused eight actions, five symbols, and one style to be
found significantly more often on the K-H-T-P than on
the H-T-P.
Another dissimilarity of the directions of the two
tests involves the H-T-P having each figure drawn
on a separate sheet whereas the K-H-T-P has all figures
drawn on the same sheet. Burns (1987) stated that the
figures could interact when they were drawn on one sheet,
and one of the styles that reached significance
was "attachment of two figures." This style is present
when two figures are touching in the drawing.
"Picking," "standing," and "walking" were the
other three actions that have not been previously
discussed. "Picking" is not defined by Burns. The
closest he comes to this is listing the action "picking
up" as being a common action. "Picking" in the drawings,
of this sample had to do with a figure picking fruit off
a tree or picking flowers. There was no reference to
this type of action in any of Burns's work so this
action will remain without a definition. "Standing" and
131
"walking" were defined by Burns as being a common action
of an individual (Burns & Kaufman, 1972).
One emotional indicator that will always be
present on a K-H-T-P drawing is called "trees, drawn
with house." The directions ask for a house, tree, and
person to be drawn on the same page, therefore it is
required rather than chosen to be drawn. That tends to
negate the meaning of the indicator when it is found on
the K-H-T-P. This indicator has a definition of a
strong need for reliance on others (Levine & Sapolsky,
1969), and often the trees represent specific people in
the subject's family (Buck, 1948).
Another emotional indicator that should almost
always be present on the K-H-T-P drawing is "movement,
non-violent." Since drawing an action is part of the
instructions, there will most likely be some type of
action on the page. One exception to this is where the
action drawn is "looking," "gazing," "standing," or
other states of being. "Movement, non-violent" is
not used with these examples because the person is not
moving. In this study, there were 194 students who drew
an action indicating "movement, n o n- vio len t."
The dissimilarities of the directions of the
132
tests account for the eight actions, two styles, five
symbols, and one house indicator. Thus 16 emotional
indicators out of a total of 34 were found significantly
more often on the K-H-T-P than on the H-T-P.
There is a concern involving three emotional
indicators: "House, small"; "tree, small"; and "size,
unusually small." These indicators are found under the
headings of house, tree, and person respectively. In
Burns's book (1987) on the K-H-T-P, he says to use the
emotional indicators that have been defined in the
projective literature when analyzing the K-H-T-P. He
lists many of the indicators in the appendix of his book
(Burns, 1987). These emotional indicators have been
based on either a house, tree, or person drawn
separately on a 8h " by 11" sheet of paper. Since
Burns's instructions for the K-H-T-P are to draw all
figures on one sheet, the figures might be drawn smaller
(than what would be drawn for the H-T-P) to
get them all on the same page. There is a question of
these three emotional indicators having the same meaning
on the K-H-T-P as they do on the H-T-P.
With the concern established over the size of the
figures when having to draw all figures on the same
133
page, it is interesting to see the indicator of
"clouds" showing up on the K-H-T-P. "Clouds" is
definitely an embellishment to the drawing because it
was not specifically asked for in the directions of the
test. There would be more room on the pages of the
H-T-P drawings to add clouds, but this was not the case,
showing that the concern over size mentioned earlier
does not prevent this embellishment to occur. Another
emotional indicator along this same line is "inclusion
of extra figures." Again, it would seem that there
would be more room on the pages of the H-T-P drawings to
add extra figures, but this did not occur.
Four emotional indicators have to do with the
omission of facial features. These are "ears, omitted";
"eyes, omitted"; "mouth, omitted"; and "nose, omitted."
It was observed that many times the person drawn on the
K-H-T-P was so small that it was difficult to decipher
what facial features were present, and other times the
small person was simply missing facial features. Their
H-T-P drawing of the person would be larger and possess
the facial features. In this case it seems to suggest
that the size of the person plays a role in the four
indicators of facial features.
134
Van Hutton (1994) found the same results in her
research when asking for a house, tree, and person to be
drawn on the same page. (This was not a K-H-T-P, but an
H-T-P on one page according to her study.) Van Hutton
next asked for a person to be drawn on a separate sheet
of paper. She found that the person drawn with the
house and tree did not have much detail, and was small,
sketchy, and insignificant. While she stated that the
small and sketchy figures add to the interpretation of
the drawing, the person drawn on a separate sheet
provided much more detail for clinical analysis.
The number of times that these indicators were
found only on the K-H-T-P is not particularly large, but
it is worth noting that this finding was also found in
the Van Hutton work (1994).
In summary, 34 emotional indicators were found
significantly more often on the K-H-T-P than on the
H-T-P. There were emotional indicators present in every
category, and there are varied definitions of the
emotional indicators showing many different personality
t r a i t s . The one trait that was found the most often was
"with dra wa l." While some of the indicators were
questioned earlier for their validity, these questions
135
are meant only to bring to light some of the possible
problems in trying to compare the two tests by the same
criteria in the projective literature.
Implications
From an analysis of the findings, the following
implications are made:
1. The H-T-P drawing and the K-H-T-P drawing
differ in the emotional indicators that were elicited
from each test.
2. The H-T-P and the K-H-T-P are not
interchangeable tests. One test cannot take the place
of the other. They both evoke emotional indicators
from different areas of the drawings.
3. The different emotional indicators that are
evoked from each test will, many times, have different
definitions and therefore give a different slant on the
clinical picture of the drawer. This is not incorrect;
it is just a different emphasis.
4. When wanting to test for hostility and
aggression, the H-T-P should be administered instead of
the K-H-T-P.
5. The H-T-P and the K-H-T-P should both be used
136
in a psychological assessment battery so that there is
more information added to the clinical f in d i n g s .
6. With more than twice as many emotional
indicators found significantly more often on the H-T-P
than the K-H-T-P, the H-T-P should be administered when
one projective test is required.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and implications of the
study, the following recommendations are suggested for
further research in the area of proj ective d r a w i n g s :
1. Since there is no reliability or validity
information available on the K-H-T-P, studies should be
conducted with the K-H-T-P to establish the
reliability and validity coef fic ien ts .
2. This type of study should be replicated to
gain further knowledge into the similarities and
differences of the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P.
3. Further studies comparing the H-T-P and the
K-H-T-P should be conducted to learn more about
emotional indicators. It would be beneficial to learn
if emotional indicators appear as clusters, meaning that
they are always present on a drawing t o g e t h e r .
137
4. To completely compare the H-T-P and the
K-H-T-P, studies should be conducted that include all
the components of the tests. The H-T-P would have a PDI
and color drawings done, and the participants would have
a clinical interview and history taken so that the
information could be merged with the findings of the K-
H-T-P.
5. The works of Buck and Machover are always
referenced in the literature even though their work was
conducted several decades ago. Both authors stated that
their findings gave a framework for drawing
interpretation, but that it is not necessarily complete
or correct (Buck, 1948; Machover, 1949). They both
stated that work should come after their
findings for validation and refinement of the
interpretation of projective drawings. Research studies
should be conducted to further the foundation laid by
Buck and Machover instead of stopping with their
findings.
A P P E N D IC E S
APPENDIX A
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY
Department of Educational and
Counseling Psychology
Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
The purpose of this research is to compare two types

of projective drawings for the clinical data that can
be obtained from each. It is expected that this
research will provide some insight into the usefulness
of the projective tests for clinicians who want to
obtain information through drawings.
The proposed data-gathering techniques will include

the following: 1) a House-Tree-Person drawing
completed by the student, and 2) a Kinetic House-Tree-
Person completed by the student.
Names of the participants will be withheld in the

final report and will not be disclosed at any time to
insure anonymity. All participants are free at any
time to terminate this consent and withdraw from
participating without any further obligation.
This research will be supervised by Dr. Nancy

Carbonell from the Educational and Counseling
Psychology department in the School of Education. If
you have any questions, please call Denise Stoddard at
616-3277128 or 708-7546013, or Dr. Nancy Carbonell at
616-471-3472.
I have read and understood this statement and have had

my questions answered. I consent to participate in
the research described above and understand that there
is no compensation in return for my participation. I
also have been given a copy of the consent form.
Signature________________________________________ Date
Witness Date
140
APPENDIX B
4 99 EMOTIONAL INDICATORS FOUND IN THE STUDY
142
GENERAL DRAWING CHARACTERISTIC
EMOTIONAL PRESENT PRESENT PRESENT ABSENT P

INDICATOR ON BOTH ONLY-HTP ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
Clouds 17 180 .0 0 0 *
Details,
Atypical 202 .500
Details,
Basic
Omission 200 .250
Details,
Labeled 199 .000
Details,
Non-essential 201 . 000
Details,
Numerous and
Painstakingly
Drawn 18S .065
Distortions,
Moderate 0 1 2 201 1 .000
Distortions, 0 1 0 203 1 .000

Severe
Erasure with 191 .549

Drawing
Ground-line,
Arc-like hill 201 .000
Ground-line,
Darkly drawn 198 .000
Ground-line,
Drawn
Spontaneously 40 26 23 115 .775
143
EMOTIONAL PRESENT PRESENT PRESENT ABSENT p

Ground-line,
sloping
Downward and
Away from
drawn whole
On either
Side 0 3 3 198 1. 000
Ground-line,
Sloping
Downward to
Right 0 0 3 201 .250
Inclusion of
Extra figures 3 1 22 178 .000*
Lines,
Circular and
Uninterrupted 1 0 0 203 1. 000
Lines, curving 1 1 0 202 1.000
Lines, dark 7 3 3 191 1. 000
L i n e s , heavy
For specific
Detail 1 0 0 203 1. 000
Lines, jagged
And not joined 2 1 1 200 1.000
Lines,
Scribbled 1 0 0 203 1.000
Lines,
Sketchy 53 19 4 128 .003*
Lines, steady 84 6 11 103 .332
Mountains, in
Background 2 1 7 194 .070
144

M ou nta in s,
Spontaneously
Drawn 0 1 0 203 1 . 000
Paper-basing 20 33 3 148 .000 *
Paper-
chopping,
Bottom of page 3 20 0 181 .00 0 *
Paper-
chopping, left
Side of page 6 22 17 159 .522
Paper-
Chopping,
Right side
Of page 9 20 12 163 .216
Paper-
chopping,
Top of page 10 16 9 169 .230
Paper-topping 3 1 1 199 1 . 000
Paper-turning 1 29 1 173 .000 *
Perspective, 2 2 3 197 1 .000

Bird's eye
View
Perspective,
Close view 1 5 0 198 .063
Perspective,
Distant view 2 24 3 175 .0 0 0 *
Perspective,
Drawing without
Profile 64 23 27 90 .671
145

Placement of
Whole, at left 5 23 4 172 .001*
Placement of
Whole, at
Right 0 3 1 200 .625
Placement of
Whole, central 25 77 4 98 .000*
Placement of
Whole, high 4 17 4 179 .007*
Placement of
Whole, low 6 25 2 171 .000*
Placement of
Whole, top
Left corner 0 6 1 197 .125
Pressure,
Constant 37 3 1 163 .625
Pressure,
Unusually
Heavy 0 3 0 201 .250
Pressure,
Unusually
Inconsistent 14 6 2 182 .289
Pressure,
Unusually
Light .3 0 1 200 1.000
Redrawing of
Original 0 1 1 202 1. 000
Reinforcement,
General 4 1 1 198 1.000
146

Reinforcement,
Specific 194 1.000
Shading,
Absence of 203 1.000
Shading,
Excessive 191 344
Shading,
Pathoformic
Use of 0 202 500
Shading,
Specific 16 19 160 .089
Shadow 1 1 202 1.000
Size, unusually
Large 0 22 179 000’
Size, unusually
Small 5 48 148 000^
Space,
Constriction
By page 16 181 004'
Transparent
Drawings 1 1 200 1.000
Wind 0 1 202 1.000
147
HOUSE

Bedroom 0 0 1 203 1 .000
Blueprint 0 0 2 202 .500
Chimney, at
An angle 0 5 0 199 .063
Chimney,
Emphasis
Upon 4 7 4 18 9 .549
Chimney,
Easily drawn 22 20 15 147 .499
Chimney,
More than
One 0 6 1 197 .125
Chimney,
Mostly
Hidden 1 0 0 203 1 .000
Chimney,
Omitted 66 22 46 70 .005*
Chimney,
Prominent 12 16 18 158 .864
Chimney, two-
Dimensional 5 3 2 194 1 . 000
Chimney, seen
Through
Transparent
Wall or
Ceiling 2 3 3 196 1 .000
INDICATOR ON BOTH ONLY-HTP ONLY KHTP ON BOTFI
Details,
Irrelevant,
Horizontal line
Separating
First and second
Stories 10 1 0 193 1. 000
Dimension,
over
emphasized
horizontal 1 2 1 200 1. 000
Dimension,
Over-
Emphasized
Vertical 1 3 4 196 1. 000
Door, above
Baseline and
Without steps 1 1 0 202 1. 000
Door, back
Or side 8 6 4 186 .754
Door,
Double door 9 23 6 166 .003*
Door, front 178 7 12 7 .359
Door, large 3 7 1 193 .070
Door, omitted 2 1 3 198 .625
Door, open 2 2 3 197 1.000 '
Door,
Recessed or
Hidden 2 5 0 197 .063
Door, small 3 3 8 190 .227
149
E M O T IO N A L PRESENT PRESENT PRESENT ABSENT p

IN D IC A T O R ON BO TH O N L Y -H T P ONLY KHTP ON B O TH
Door, with
Heavy hinges
And/or lock 201 1.000
Doorknob,
with peephole 200 .500
Doorknob,
Emphasis upon 58 27 17 102 175
Doorknob,
Omitted 10 18 171 .186
Eaves,
Emphasized 36 16 16 136 1.000
Endwall, lines
Heavy for this
Detail specif
ically 203 1.000
Fence around
House 193 453
Fireplace 203 1.000
Flowers, tulip
Or daisy-like 9 35 151 .000*
Gutters 0 2 202 .500
House,
Anthropo-
Morphic 0 2 202 .500
House, large 1 35 164 000^
House, rear
View drawn 203 1.000
House, small 14 25 159 001^
150

Kitchen O i l 202 1.000
Living room 0 2 1 201 1.000
Pillars,
Unusually
High 0 1 0 203 1.000
Roof, poor
Relation to
Ground floor 0 1 0 203 1.000
Roof,
Shading of 4 18 6 176 .023*
Roof,
Single line
Connecting
Two walls 0 3 3 198 1.000
Roof,
Outline
Darkly drawn 4 10 7 183 .629
Roof,
Outline
Lightly drawn 0 2 0 202 .500
Roof,
Unusually
Large 0 3 1 200 .625
Roof, with
Incomplete
Closure of
Apex 0 1 3 200 .625
Shades,
Extension
Beyond
Windows 0 1 0 203 1.000
151
E M O T IO N A L PRESENT PRESENT PRESENT ABSENT P

Sh ru bs, drawn
Haphazardly
Or along
Walkway 8 17 6 173 .035*
Shrubs,
Protectively
Around
House and in
Profusion 1 3 3 197 1 .000
Shutters,
Closed 0 2 0 202 .500
Shutters,
Open 6 11 3 184 .057
Sidewalk,
Broad 3 4 3 194 1 .000
Sidewalk,
Easily and
Appropriately
Drawn 10 25 19 150 .451
Sidewalk,
Very long 1 5 4 194 1 .000
Sidewalk, wide
At end,
Becoming
Progressively
Narrow toward
House 3 7 4 190 .549
Smoke, blowing
From right to
Left 0 2 0 202 .500
152

Smoke, in
Abundance 5 5 4 190 1.000
Smoke,
Narrow line 3 6 6 189 1.000
Trees, drawn
With house 26 0 178 0 .000*
Vent stack
Protruding
From roof 0 2 1 201 1.000
Walls, baseline
To wall
Heavily drawn 0 2 0 202 .500
Walls, emphasis
On outline 2 9 5 188 .424
Walls,
Incomplete
Connection of 0 0 1 203 1.000
Walls, double
Perspective,
Thin endwalls 0 3 0 201 .250
Walls, outline
Faintly drawn 0 1 0 203 1.000
Walls,
Transparent 0 2 0 202 .500
Windows, absent
From ground
Floor 7 3 5 189 .727
153

IN D IC A T O R ON B O TH O N L Y -H T P ONLY KHTP ON B O TH
Windows,
Appropriate
Number and
size of 55 17 18 114 1. 000
Windows, bare 2 1 0 201 1. 000
Windows,
Curtained 27 29 12 136 .012
Windows, few 1 1 3 199 .625
Wi n d o w s , heavy
Reinforcement of 4 7 3 190 .344
W i n d o w s , many 9 11 3 181 .057
Windows, many
Panes 9 13 5 177 .096
W i n d o w s , omitted 3 4 3 194 1.000
W i n d o w s , open 1 0 1 202 1.000
Windows, oval 7 17 1 179 .000
W i n d o w s , pane
Indicated by
Single,
Dissecting,
Vertical line 2 2 2 198 1. 000
Windows,
Paneless 3 6 5 190 1.000
Windows,
Placement
Lacking
Conformity 1 2 6 195 .289
154

IN D IC A T O R ON B O TH O N L Y -H T P ONLY KHTP ON B O T H _ ______
Windows, round
Or semi-circle 13 11 8 172 .648
W in d o w s , star 0 0 1 203 1.000
W in do ws ,
Triangular 0 0 1 203 1 . 000
Windows,
Unusually
Small 1 0 0 203 1.000
Windows, with
Barred
Appearance 1 0 0 203 1.000
Wi n d o w s , with
Locks
Emphasized 1 2 0 201 .500
155
TREE
E M O T IO N A L PRESENT PRESENT PRESENT ABSENT

Animal
Peeking from
hole in tree 198 . 688
Apple tree 10 184 815
Apples, falling
Or fallen 198 063
Bark,
Carefully
Drawn 13 183 04 9’
Bark, depicted
By evenly
Spaced vine-
Like vertical
Lines 10 193 012 ’
Bark, easily
Drawn 12 187 035’
Bark,
Inconsistently
Or heavily
Drawn 17 28 157 000’
Branches,
Broken, bent,
Or dead 0 4 1 199 .375
Branches,
Extending
Beyond top
Of paper 3 19 3 179 .001*
Branches,
Falling 0 2 1 201 1.000
156

Branches, in
Perfect symmetry 1 3 0 200 .250
Branches,
Large in
Proportion
To trunk 0 0 1 203 1.000
Branches, long,
Thin, and
Pointing upward,
Not outward 0 1 0 203 1.000
Branches,
Lower part
On trunk 2 6 1 195 .125
Branches,
Negligent
Treatment of 3 9 8 184 1.000
Branches, new
Growth
Extending
From barren
Trunk 0 2 0 202 .500
Branches,
Numerous on
Small trunk 0 2 0 202 .500
Branches,
One-dimensional,
Non-systematic
And separated
From a one
dimensional
trunk 0 1 0 203 1.000
157
E M O T IO N A L PRESENT PRESENT PRESENT ABSENT

Branches,
Overemphasis
To left 202 1.000
Branches,
Shaded 13 182 049’
Branches,
Small on
Large trunk 200 500
Branches,
Spike-like 201 500
Branches, two-
Dimensional,
Club-like
With
Inadequate
Organization 203 1.000
Branches, two-
Dimensional,
Partially-
Drawn with
Implied
Foliage 202 1.000
Branches, two-
Dimensional,
With open
Distal end 15 12 4 173 .077
Branches,
Unshaded 0 1 1 202 1.000
Branches,
"wrapped"
In cotton" 2 3 2 197 1.000
158

IN D IC A T O R ON B O TH O N L Y -H T P ONLY K HTP ON B O TH
Branches,
Wide, short,
And appearing
"cutoff" 200 1.000
Christinas tree 200 250
Crown,
Cloud-like 59 34 97 .006*
Crown,
Curlicue 186 549
Crown, flat 200 625
Crown, jumble
Of scribbled
Lines 15 10 173 454
Crown,
Shaded 198 1.000
Ground,
T ra nsp ar ent ,
Roots visible
Below surface 201 250
Leaves,
Falling 10 188 302
Leaves,
Hand-like 202 1.000
Leaves, not
Connected to
Branches 203 1.000
Leaves,
Numerous 11 189 006*
159

Le a ve s,
Numerous and in
Great detail 0 1 0 203 1.000
Le a ve s,
Omitted 4 7 4 189 .549
Leaves,
Pointed
Sharply 2 1 0 201 1.000
Leaves, two-
Dimensional,
And overly
Large in
Proportion
To branches 1 2 1 200 1.000
Branches, two-
Dimensional
And drawn with
Excessive care 1 5 0 198 .063
Roots,
Inadequate
Organization
Of 8 6 7 183 1.000
Roots, omitted,
Without
Baseline 32 14 29 129 .033*
Roots,
Overemphasized
As they enter
Ground 0 5 1 198 .219
Roots, shaded 0 3 2 199 1.000
160

Roots,
Tapering
Smoothly
Into ground 12 15 9 168 .307
Roots, thin
And poor
Contact with
Ground 0 3 0 201 .250
Roots,
Transparent from
Underground 0 5 1 198 .219
Sapling 0 2 0 202 .500
Scar on trunk 27 35 6 136 .000*
Tree,
Horizontal
Movement 0 2 0 202 .500
Tree,
"keyhole" 1 0 2 201 .500
Tree, large 0 68 1 135 .000*
Tree, large
But contained
Within page 0 56 0 148 .000*
Tree, leaning
To left 2 1 1 200 1.000
Tree, leaning
To right 0 1 4 199 .375
Tree, "niggs" 4 3 2 195 1.000
Tree,
Sheltering 1 1 0 202 1.000
161

Tree, small 33 162 .000’
Tree, very
Large 19 185 000 ’
Trunk, broadly
Based with
Diminishing
Breadth 33 29 17 125 .105
Trunk, broad
With broad
Base 21 13 164 230
Trunk, broad
With
Diminutive
Branch
Structure 195 031’
Trunk, dead 202 1.000
Trunk,
Diminutive
With broad
Branch
Structure 203 1.000’
Trunk, huge
Though not
Necessarily
Broad-based 203 1.000
Trunk, long
And narrow 203 1.000
Trunk, long
With small
Crown 193 754
162

Trunk,
Narrower at
Base than at
Higher points 202 1.000
Trunk, one-
Dimensional,
With
Disorganized
One-dimensional
Branches 203 1.000
Trunk, outer
Edges darkly
Drawn 18 177 043’
Trunk, outline
Not continuous 20 21 15 148 .405
Trunk, shaded,
Especially
If deep 12 187 003’
Trunk, short
With large
Crown 190 1.000
Trunk, very
Lightly drawn 203 1.000
Trunk, very
Small and
Slender 202 1.000
Trunk, with
Thickened or
Constricted
Areas 199 1.000
Weeping
Willow tree 201 .500
163
PERSON

Arms, akimbo 1 7 1 195 .070
Arms, extended
Mechanically
And
Perpendicular
To body 1 4 3 196 1 .000
Arms, folded
Across chest 0 5 1 198 .219
Arms, held
Behind back 1 11 0 192 .0 0 1 *
Arms, held
Limp at sides 1 11 0 192 .0 0 1 *
Arms, large 1 2 1 200 1 . 000
Arms, muscular 0 4 0 200 .125
Arms, omitted 0 16 1 187 .0 0 0 *
Arms, one
Longer than
Other 0 1 2 201 1 .000
Arms,
Outstretched 3 13 19 169 .377
Arms,
Reinforcement
Of 0 7 1 196 .070
Arms, relaxed 5 13 3 183 .021*
Arms, short 2 7 2 193 .180
164

Arms, rigidly
Held to body 0 2 1 201 1. 000
Arms, thin
And frail 1 8 4 191 .388
Arms,
Unusually
Long 1 5 4 194 1.000
Arms, wing-like 0 2 1 201 1.000
Beard 2 6 1 195 .125
Belt buckle,
Emphasis of 4 40 7 153 .000*
Belt, darkly
Shaded 0 4 0 200 .125
Breasts,
Emphasized 2 13 0 189 .000*
Breasts,
Omission of 22 24 10 148 .026*
Bu tt oc ks ,
Overemphasis
Upon 1 1 1 201 1.000
Buttons,
Emphasized or
Numerous 4 31 4 165 .000*
Chin,
Prominent 0 4 3 197 1.000
Chin,
Overemphasis
Upon 0 4 3 197 1. 000
165

IN D IC A T O R ON BOTH O N L Y -H T P ONLY KHTP ON B O TH
Chin, weak 0 0 1 203 1.000
Chinline,
Omitted 0 1 0 203 1.000
Clowns, witches,
And soldiers 1 0 0 203 1.000
Earrings,
Emphasis upon 1 8 0 195 .008*
Ears, as
Question marks 3 18 2 181 .000*
Ears, omitted 8 9 28 159 .003*
Ears,
Emphasized 6 15 1 182 .001*
Ears, with
Dark dots
In area 0 5 0 199 .063
Eyebrows,
Elaborate
Treatment of 8 29 4 163 .000*
Eyebrows, thick
And heavy 1 3 1 199 .625
Eyelashes, in
Detail 7 15 0 182 .000*
Eyes, drawn as
Closed or
Concealed by
Hat brim 3 2 2 197 1.000
Eyes, hollow and

Empty 1 6 1 196 .125
166

Eyes, omitted 12 191 .000*
Eyes, periphery
Reinforced 3 10 189 039’
Eyes,
"Picasso eye' 203 1.000
Eyes, pupils
Omitted 190 146
Eyes, two
Drawn on
Profile 203 1.000
Eyes,
Unusually
Large or
Reinforced 22 41 134 000 ’
Eyes,
Unusually
Small 199 125
Eyes, with
Wide-eyed
Stare 199 063
Face,
Shaded 199 375
Facial
Features,
Omitted
When rest
Adequately
Drawn 202 1.000
Facial
Features,
Overemphasized 0 4 1 199 .375
167

Feet, bare on
Clothed figure 0 1 4 199 .375
Feet,
Emphasized 0 2 2 200 1.000
Feet, large 0 4 3 197 1.000
Feet, omitted 12 44 9 139 .000*
Feet, pointed
Downward in
"V" shape 1 3 2 198 1.000
Feet, pointing
In opposite
Directions 22 27 14 141 .061
Feet, sharply
Pointed 0 0 1 203 1.000
Feet,
Unusually long 0 1 1 202 1.000
Feet, very
Small 1 13 6 184 .167
Female figure,
Lacking
Feminine
Contours 6 11 3 184 .057
Fingernails,
Pointed or
Reinforced 0 9 3 192 .146
Fingers, fisted 0 2 4 198 .688
Fingers, long
A nd spike-like 1 7 0 196 .016*
168

IN D IC A T O R ON BO TH O N L Y -H T P ONLY KHTP ON B O TH ________
Fingers, omitted 6 22 18 158 .635
Fingers, one-
Dimensional and
Enclosed by
Circle 0 1 0 203 1.000
Fingers,
Reinforced or
Darkly shaded 1 10 3 190 .092
Fingers,
Scribbled 0 2 1 201 1.000
Fingers, short
And rounded 7 13 17 167 .584
Fingers,
Too few 1 0 0 203 1.000
Fingers,
Too many 0 1 0 203 1.000
Fingers,
Unusually
Large 1 0 0 203 1.000
Fingers,
Without hands 0 1 0 203 1.000
Hair,
Emphasis upon 44 53 15 92 .000’
Hair, heavily
Shaded 19 24 27 134 .779
Hair, in
Disarray 1 1 4 198 .375
Hair, long
And unshaded 0 0 4 200 .125
169

Hair, omitted
Or sparse 13 5 14 172 .064
Hair, unshaded,
And enclosing
Face in vise-
Like fashion 2 1 1 200 1.000
Hands,
Concealed
In pockets 0 8 0 196 .008’
Hands,
Covering
Pelvic region 0 11 1 192 .006’
Hands,
Mitten-like 4 1 18 181 .000’
Hands,
Omitted 5 32 13 164 .176
Hands,
Shaded 0 2 0 202 .500
Hands,
Swollen 0 0 1 203 1.000
Hands,
Unusually
Large 0 0 3 201 .250
Hands,
Unusually
Small 2 10 2 190 .039"
Hat on
Figure 4 8 17 175 .108
Head, back
View 0 2 8 194 .109
170

IN D IC A T O R ON BO TH O N L Y -H T P ONLY K HTP ON B O TH
Head,
Omitted 0 1 0 203 1.000
Head,
Unusually
Large 2 10 0 192 .002’
Head,
Unusually
Small 0 3 0 201 .250
Head, with
Irregular
Contour 0 0 2 202 .500
Head,
Without
Body 0 13 0 191 .000’
Hips,
Emphasized 0 2 0 202 .500
Knees,
Emphasis upon 0 3 1 200 .625
Legs, cut
Off by
Bottom
Of paper 2 23 2 177 .000’
Legs, of
Unequal
Size 0 1 0 203 1.000
Legs,
Omitted 0 17 2 185 .001’'
Legs,
Reinforcement
Of 2 5 8 189 .581
171

IN D IC A T O R ON B O TH Q N L Y -H T P ONLY K HTP ON B O TH
Legs,
Rigidly held
Together 3 11 3 187 .057
Legs,
Unusually
Long 0 0 1 203 1 .000
Legs,
Unusually
Short 0 1 0 203 1 .000
Lips, full 6 35 4 159 .0 0 0 *
Lips, full on
Male figure 0 15 2 187 .0 0 2 *
Lips,
Protrusion
Of 0 0 2 202 .500
Male figure, •f
Off balance 0 2 3 199 1 .000
Male figure,
With heavy
Shading 0 3 0 201 .250
Midline,
Emphasized 70 56 30 48 .007*
Mouth, cupid
Bow in female
Figure 9 12 18 165 .361
Mouth,
Grinning
Depicted by
Wide
Upturned
Line 8 9 23 164 .022*
172

I N D IC A T O R ON B O TH O N L Y -H T P ONLY K HTP ON B O TH
Mouth,
Omitted 12 191 000 ’
Mouth, open 13 21 14 156 .310
Mouth,
Overemphasis
Upon 4 17 180 .003’
Mouth, short,
Dark line 194 .344
Mouth,
Single line,
Unsmiling 192 .227
Mouth,
Slash line 195 .453
Mouth,
Unusually
Large 201 1.000
Mouth,
Very small 196 .289
Mouth, with
Sneer 202 .500
Movement,
Non-violent 185 10 .0 0 0 ’
Movement,
Violent 0 198 .219
Muscles, overly
Emphasized 0 202 1.000
Mustache 0 201 .250
173

Neck, long
And thin 14 25 158 .109
Neck, omitted 17 172 170
Neck, one-
Dimensional 199 1.000
Neck,
Shading of 197 1.000
Neck, short
And thick 198 219
Neck, very
Long 199 375
Nose,
Button 187 .267
Nose,
Emphasized 15 19 164 607
Nose, faint,
Shaded, or
Truncated 14 28 156 .000’
Nose, omitted 24 168 000 ’
Nose,
Phallic
And long 198 688
Nose,
Pointed
Sharply 14 11 173 690
Nose,
Triangular 193 754
174

Person,
Appearing
older than
Subject 203 1.000
Person,
Appearing
Younger
Than subject 200 1.000
Person,
Clothing
Striped 190 1.000
Person,
Dehumanized 0 203 1.000
Person, facing
Forward 82 82 13 27 000 ’
Person,
Running in
Controlled
Situation 0 201 1.000
Person, under-
Dressed or nude 0 199 .063
Pockets,
Emphasized 22 173 .002*
Pockets, placed
At breasts 1 196 .125
Posture,
Leaning 201 1.000
Posture,
Relaxed and
Standing 45 73 13 73 000’
175

I N D IC A T O R ON B O TH O N L Y -H T P ONLY K HTP ON B O TH
Posture, rigid 7 21 173 000 ’
Posture, seated 1 6 26 171 ooi’

Profile,
Ambivalent 0 0 10 194 002 ’
Profile,
Complete 57 135 000 ’
Shoes,
Emphasized 10 33 153 .000*
Shoulders,
Emphasized 15 186 002*
Shoulders,
Omitted 15 184 019’
Shoulders,
Reinforced
Or
Hesitantly
Drawn 197 688
Shoulders,
Squared 12 179 .503
Shoulders,
Unusually
Large 193 065
Shoulders,
Unusually
Small 203 1.000
Shoulders,
Very broad 197 .016*
Snowman and
Peanut man 203 1.000
176

Stance,
Broad 3 26 2 173 .000*
Stance,
On tiptoe 0 1 1 202 1.000
Stick figure 2 7 9 186 .804
Teeth,
Prominently
Presented 0 15 1 188 .001*
Tie,
Overemphasis
Upon 1 4 0 199 .125
Toes, on
Clothed
Figure 0 4 0 200 .125
Toes, pointed 0 2 0 202 .500
Trouser fly,
Emphasized 2 23 7 172 .006*
Trunk,
Incompletely
Closed at
Bottom 1 1 0 202 1.000
Trunk, omitted 0 15 0 189 .000*
Trunk,
Reversed 0 5 7 192 .774
Trunk, round 0 3 0 201 .250
Trunk,
Shaded in
Female figure 0 1 3 200 .625
177

Trunk, small
And tightened 0 0 1 203 1 .000
Trunk, square 1 6 1 196 .125
Waistline,
Shaded
Heavily 0 0 2 202 .500
178
ACTIONS

Ball
Bouncing 0 0 4 200 .125
Ball
Playing 0 0 1 203 1 .000
Being hurt 0 0 1 203 1 . 000
Boxing 0 0 1 203 1 . 000
Burning 0 1 0 203 1 .000
Catching 0 0 2 202 .500
Chopping 0 0 3 201 .250
Climbing 0 0 4 200 .125
Cooking 0 0 1 203 1 .000
Cutting 0 0 1 203 1 .000
Dancing 0 0 1 203 1 .000
Digging 0 0 2 202 .500
Diving 0 0 2 202 .500
Dreaming 0 0 1 203 1 .000
Driving 0 0 4 200 .125
Falling 0 0 2 202 .500
Falling
In love 0 0 1 203 1 .000
Fishing 0 0 1 203 1 .000
179

Flying 0 1 3 200 .625
Gardening 0 0 2 202 .500
Hitting 0 0 2 202 .500
Holding 0 0 4 200 .125
Hosing 0 0 3 201 .250
Hugging 0 0 1 203 1.000
Jumping 0 0 12 192 .000*
Kicking 0 0 4 200 .125
Kite
Flying 0 0 8 196 .008*
Knocking 0 0 1 203 1. 000
Lifting 0 0 2 202 .500
Looking 0 0 5 199 .063
Mowing 0 0 10 194 .002*
Parachuting 0 0 1 203 1. 000
Picking 0 0 7 197 .016*
Planting 0 0 1 203 1.000
Playing
Alone 0 0 13 191 .000*
Playing
Music 0 0 1 203 1.000
Playing with
Someone 0 0 2 202 .500
180

Pulling 0 0 1 203 1.000
Pushing 0 0 4 200 .125
Raining 0 0 1 203 1.000
Raking 0 0 2 202 .500
Reading 0 1 2 201 1. 000
Reclining 0 0 1 203 1.000
Riding 0 0 5 199 .063
Running 0 1 5 198 .219
Singing 0 0 3 201 .250
Shouting 0 0 1 203 1.000
Sitting 0 0 4 200 .125
Skipping 0 0 1 203 1. 000
Sleeping 0 0 2 202 .500
Smoking 0 0 1 203 1. 000
Standing 0 0 8 196 .008
Surfing 0 0 1 203 1. 000
Swimming 0 0 1 203 1. 000
Swinging 1 0 19 184 . 000'
Vacuuming 0 0 1 203 1. 000
Walking 0 2 18 184 .000'
Waning 0 0 1 203 1.000
181

Washing 0 0 1 203 1.000
Waving 1 4 7 192 .549
Writing 0 1 1 202 1.000
182
STYLES

Attachment
Of two
Figures 0 6 44 154 .00 0 *
Compartmental-
Ization 0 0 2 202 .500
Encapsulation 1 0 23 180 .000 *
Lining at
The top 0 0 1 203 1 . 000
Lining at the
Bottom 0 3 0 201 .250
Underlining
Individual
Figures 0 0 1 203 1 .000
183
SYMBOLS

Ball 0 0 22 182 .000*
Bed 0 0 2 202 .500
Bikes 0 0 3 201 .250
Birds 10 16 10 168 .327
Butterflies 0 1 1 202 1. 000
Cats 1 0 1 202 1.000
Fire 0 1 2 201 1.000
Heat 1 1 1 201 1. 000
Jump rope 0 0 10 194 .002*
Kites 0 0 8 196 .008*
Ladders 0 0 2 202 .500
Lamps 0 0 1 203 1.000
Lawn
Mowers 0 0 9 195 .004*
Light
Bulbs 0 2 6 196 .289
Logs 0 0 3 201 .250
Moon 1 0 4 199 .125
Motor
cycle 0 0 2 202 .500
Pipe 0 0 1 203 1. 000
184

Rain 201 .250
Refrig
erator 203 1.000
Snow and
Other "cold'
Symbols 0 1 201 1.000
Stars 1 3 196 1.000
Stoves 203 1.000
Sun 12 179 .238
Swing in
The tree 19 180 003’
Vacuums 203 1.000
Water 12 183 .359
Weapons 0 2 202 .500
"X" syndrome 1 1 202 1.000
REFERENCE L IS T
REFERENCE LIST
Abell, S. C . , Heiberger, A. M . , & Johnson, J. E.

(1994). Cognitive evaluations of young adults by
means of human figure d r a w i n g s : An empirical
investigation of two methods. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 50(6), 900-905.
Allen, R. M. (1958). Personality Assessment Proc ed ure s.

New York: H a r p e r .
Ames, L. B. (1987). Introduction. In R . C . Burns,

Kinetic house-tree-person d r a w i n g s . New York:
Brunne r/M az el.
Baldwin, I . T . (1964). The head-body ratio in human

figure drawings of schizophrenic and normal
adults. Journal of Projective Techniques and
Personality Assessment, 28, 393-396.
Barnouw, V. (1969). Cross-cultural research with the

house-tree-person t e s t . In J.N. Buck & E.F. Hammer
(Eds.), Advances in the house-tree-person
technique: Variations and applications. Los
A n g e l e s : Western Psychological ser v i c e s .
Blain, G. H ., Bergn er , R. M ., Lewis, M. L ., &

Goldstein, M. A. (1981) . The use of objectively
scoreable house-tree-person indicators to
establish child abuse. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 37, 667-673.
Bodwin, R. F . , & Bruck, M. (1960). The adaptation and

validation of the draw-a-person test as a measure
of self c o n c ept . Journal of Clinical Psychology,
16, 427-429.
Bradfield, R. H . (1964). The predictive validity of

children's d ra w i n g s . California Journal of
Educational Research, 15, 166-174.
186
187
Brooke, S. L. (1996). A therapist's guide to art

therapy a s s ess me nt: Tools of the trade.
Springfield, IL: Charles C T h o m a s .
Brown, F. (1958). Adult case study: Clinical validation

of the house-tree-person drawings of an adult case
(chronic ulcerative colitis with ile o s t o m y ) . In
E.F. Hammer (Ed.), The clinical application of
projective drawings (pp. 261-275). Springfield,
IL: Charles C T h o m a s .
Buck, J. N. (1948) . The H-T-P t e s t . Journal of Clinical

Buck, J. N . (1949). The h-t-p t e s t : Illustrative cases,

a quality and quantity m a n u a l . Journal of Clinical
Buck, J. N . (1950, March 31 - April 2). Administration

and interpretation of the H-T-P test. Proceedings
of the H-T-P workshop held at Veterans
Administration Hospital, Richmond 19, V a . Los
A n g e l e s : Western Psychological S e r v i c e s .
Buck, J. N. (1951) . The quality and quantity of the

H - T - P . Journal of Clinical Psychology, 7, 352-356.
Buck, J. N . (1966). The house-tree-person technique:

Revised m a n u a l . Los A n g e l e s : Western Psychological
Se rv i c e s .
Buck, J. N . (1969). The use of the H-T-P in the

investigation of intra-familial co nf l i c t . In J.N.
Buck & E.F. Hammer (Ed.), Advances in the house-
tree-person technique: Variations and
applications. Los A n g e l e s : Western Psychological
se rv ice s.
Buck, J. N. (1992). The house-tree-person projective

drawing technique: Manual and interpretive guide
(Rev. e d . ). Los A n g e l e s : Western Psychological
Se rv i c e s .
Burns, R. C. (1982) . Self-growth in f am ili es . New York:

Brunner/Mazel.
188
Burns, R. C. (1987). Kinetic house-tree-person

drawings. New York: Brun ne r/M aze l.
Burns, R. C . , & Kaufman, S. H. (1970). Kinetic family

drawing (K-F-D): An introduction to understanding
children through kinetic dra w i n g s . New York:
Br un ner /Ma ze l.
Burns, R. C ., & Kaufman, S. H . (1972). A c t i o n s , styles,

and symbols in kinetic family drawings (K-F-D) : An
interpretative manual. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Buros, 0. K. (1970). Personality tests and r e v i e w s .

Highland Park, N J : The Gryphon P r e s s .
Burton A. & Sjoberg, B. (1964). The diagnostic validity

of human figure drawings in sch iz oph re nia . Journal
of Psychology, 57, 3-18.
Cho, M. (1987). The validity of the kinetic family

drawings as a measure of self-concept and
pa rent/child relationships among Chinese children
in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Andrews University, Berrien Spri ng s, M I .
Chodorow, N . J. (1999). The po w e r of f e e l i n g s . New

H a v e n : Yale University P r e s s .
Cohen, F. W . , & Phelps, R. E. (1985). Incest markers in

children's artwork. The Arts in Ps ychotherapy,
12(4), 265-283.
Chuah, V. N . (1992) . Kinetic family dra wings of

Chinese-American children. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Andrews University, Berrien Springs,
MI.
Cummings, J. A. (198 6). The assessment of child and

adolescent personality. New York: Guilford P r e s s .
Davis, C . J., & Hoopes, J. L. (1975). Comparison of

house-tree-person drawings of young deaf and
hearing children. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 39(1), 28-33.
189
Deabler, H. L. (1969). The H-T-P in group testing and

as a screening device. In J.N. Buck & E .F.
Hammer (Eds.), Advances in the house-tree-person
technique: Variations and ap plications. Los
Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Deren, S. (1975). An empirical evaluation of the

validity of the draw-a-family t e s t . Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 31, 542-54 6.
Devore, J. E . , & Fryrear, J. L. (1976). Analysis of

juvenile delinquents' hole drawing responses on
the tree figure of the house-tree-person
t e c h n i q u e . Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(3),
731-736.
DiLeo, J.H. (1970). Young children and their dr aw i n g s .

New York: Br unner/Mazel.
DiLeo, J.H. (1973). Children's dra wings as diagnostic

aids. New York: Brunner /Ma zel .
Doorbar, R.R. (1967). Psychological testing of

tra nss ex ual s: A brief report of results from the
wechsler adult intelligence scale, the thematic
apperception test, and the house-tree-person t e s t .
Transactions of the N e w York Academy of Sci ences,
29(4), 455-462.
Elin, N ., & Nucho, A. 0. (1979). The use of kinetic

family drawing as a diagnostic tool in assessing
the child's self-concept. Art Psychotherapy, 6,
241-247.
Evans, R. B ., & Marmorston, J. (1963). Psychological

test signs of brain damage in cerebral
thrombosis. Psychological Reports, 12, 915-930.
Exner, J. E . (1962). A comparison of the human figure

drawings of psychoneurotics, character
disturbances, normals, and subjects experiencing
experimentally-induced f e a r . Journal of Projective
Techniques, 26, 392-397.
Exner, J. E. (1974). The Rorschach comprehensive

system (Vol. 1). New York: John Wiley & S o n s .
190
Exner, J. E. (1983). Rorschach assessment. In I.B.

Weiner (Ed.), Clinical methods in ps y c h o l o g y (2nd
e d . ). New York: John Wiley & S o n s .
Exner, J. E. (1993). The Rorschach comprehensive

system (Vol.l: Basic foundations (3rd ed.). New
York: John Wiley & S o n s .
Fine, R. (1979). A history of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s . New Y o r k :

Columbia University P r e s s .
Freud, A. (1936). The ego and the mechanisms of

defenses. New York: International University
Pr e s s .
Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of d r e a m s . V o l s . 4

and 5 of The standard edition of the complete
psychological works of Sigmund Freud. L o n d o n :
Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1912). The dynamics of transference. Vol.

12 of The standard edition of the complete
ps yc hologica1 works of Sigmund Freud. L o n d o n :
Hogarth.
Fukunishi, I., Mikami, N ., & Kikuchi, M. (1997).

Alexithymic characteristics in responses to the
synthetic house-tree-person (HTP) drawing t e s t .
Perceptual and Mo tor Skills, 85, 939-942.
Gilbert, J. (1969). Clinical psychological tests in

psychiatric and medical practice. Springfield, I L :
Charles C . T h o m a s .
Goldstein, A. P . , & Rawn, M. L. (1957). The validity of

interpretative signs of aggression in the drawing
of the human f i g u r e . Journal of Clinical
Gregory, S. A. (1992). A validation and comparative

study of kinetic family drawings of native
American children. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Andrews University, Berrien Springs,
MI.
191
Groth-Marnat, G . ,& Roberts, L. (1998). Human figure

drawings and house tree person drawings as
indicators of self-esteem: A quantitative
approach. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
5 4 (2), 219-222.
Gurvitz, M. (1951). The dynamics of psychological

testing. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Hackbarth, S. G ., Murphy, H . D ., & McQuary, J. P.

(1991). Identifying sexually abused children by
using kinetic family d r a w i n g s . Elementary School
Guidance & Counseling, 25, 255-260.
Halpern, F. (1965). Diagnostic methods in childhood

d i s o r d e r s . In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of
clinical ps ych ol ogy (pp. 381-408). New York:
McGraw H i l l .
Hammer, E . F. (1953a). An investigation of sexual

symbolism: A study of H-T-Ps of eugenically
sterilized sub je c t s . Journal of Projective
Techniques, 17, 401-413.
Hammer, E . F. (1953b). Frustration-aggression

hypothesis extended to socio-racial a r e a s .
Psychiatric Quarterly, 21, 597-607.
Hammer, E . F. (1954a). Comparison of H-T-Ps of rapists

and p e d o p h i l e s . Journal of Projective Techniques,
18, 346-354.
Hammer, E. F. (1954b). An experimental study of

symbolism on the bender g e s tal t. Journal of
Projective Techniques, 18, 335-345.
Hammer, E . F. (1958). The clinical application of

projective dra wings. Springfield, I L : Charles C
Thomas.
Hammer, E . F. (1964) . The house-tree-person (H-T-P)

clinical research m a n u a l . Los A n g e l e s : Western
Psychological S e r v i c e s .
192
Hammer, E. F. (1965). Acting out and its prediction by

projective drawing a s s e ssm en t. In L. Abt & S.
Weissman (Eds.), Acting out (pp. 228-319). New
Y o r k : Grune & S tra t t o n .
Hammer, E . F. (1969). The use of the H-T-P in criminal

c o u r t : Acting o u t . In J. N . Buck & E .F. Hammer
(Eds.), Advances in house-tree-person techniques:
Variations and applications (pp. 267-295). Los
Hammer, E. F. (1997). Advances in pro jective drawing

interpretation. Springfield, IL: Charles C T h o m a s .
Handler, L . , & Reyher, J. (1964). The effects of stress

on the draw-a-person t e s t . Journal of Consulting
Haworth, M . , & Rabin, A. I . (1960). Miscellaneous

t e c h niq ues . In A.I. Rabin & M. Haworth (Eds.),
Projective techniques with children. New York:
Grune & S tr att on.
Holzberg, J. D . , & Wexler, M. (1950). The validity of

human form drawings as a measure of personality
d e v i a t i o n . Journal of Projective Techniques, 14,
343-361.
Hulse, W. C . (1951). The emotionally disturbed child

draws his family. Quarterly Journal of Child
Behavior, 3, 152-174.
Hulse, W. C . (1952). Child conflict expressed through

family dr aw i n g s . Journal of Projective
Techniques, 16, 66-7 9.
Jacks, I . (1969). The clinical application of the h-t-p

in criminological set t i n g s . In J . N . Buck & E.F.
technique: Variations and ap pl ications. Los
Johnson, J. H. (1973). Bender-Gestalt constriction as

an indicator of depression in psychotic p a t i e n t s .
Journal of Personality Assessment, 37, 53-55.
193
Jolles, I. A. (1964). A catalogue for the qualitative

interpretation of the house-tree-person (H-T-P) .
Los A n g e l e s : Western Psychological S e r v i c e s .
Jolles, I. A. (1969). The use of the H-T-P in a school

setting. In J. N. Buck & E.F. Hammer (Eds.),
Advances in house-tree-person techniques:
Variations and applications (pp. 223-243). Los
Jolles, I . A. (1971). A catalogue for the qualitative

interpretation of the house-tree-person (H-T-P).
Los A n g e l e s : Western Psychological S e r v i c e s .
Jung, C . G. (1954). The practice of p s y c h o t h e r a p y . New

York: Pantheon.
Kahn, M. (2002). Basic Freud, psychoanalytic thought

for the 21st century. New York: Basic B o o k s .
Kaufman, B ., & Wohl, A. (1992). Casualties of

childhood: A developmental perspective on sexual
abuse using pr ojective dr aw i n g s . New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Klein, M. (1963). E nvy and gratitude and other w o r k s .

New York: D e l t a .
K n o f f , H. M . , & Prout, H . T . (1985). Kinetic drawing

system for family and s c h o o l : A h a n d b o o k . Los
A n g e l e s : Western Psychological S er v i c e s .
Koch, C . (1952). The tree test. New York: Grune &

Stratton.
Kokonis, N . D. (1972). Body image disturbance in

schizophrenia: A study of arms and feet. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 36, 573-575.
Koppitz, E . M. (1966). Emotional indicators on human

figure drawings of c h i l d r e n : A validation study.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 313-315. New
York: Grune and Stratton.
Koppitz, E. M. (1968) . Psychological evaluation of

children's human figure dr awi ng s. New York: Grune
and Stratton.
194
Korner, A. F. (1965). Theoretical considerations

concerning the scope and limitations of projective
techniques. In B.I. Murstein (Ed.), Handbook of
projective techniques (pp. 24-26). New York: Basic
Books.
Kuhlman, T . L . , & Bieliauskas, V. J. (1976). A

comparison of Black and White adolescents on the
H-T-P. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 728-
731.
Lakin, M. (1956). Certain formal characteristics of

human figure drawings by institutionalized aged
and by normal children. Journal of Counseling
Landisberg, S. (1969). The use of the H-T-P in a mental

hygiene clinic for children. In J.N. Buck & E.F.
technique: Variations and app li cat io ns. Los
Levine, A . , & Sapolsky, A. (1969). The use of the H-T-P

as an aid in the screening of hospitalized
p a t i e n t s . In J.N. Buck & E.F. Hammer (Eds.),
Advances in the house-tree-person t e c hni qu e:
Variations and appl ic ati ons . Los A n g e l e s : Western
Levine, M . , & Galanter, E . H . (1953). A note on the

"tree and trauma" interpretation in the H - T - P .
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1 7, 74-75.
Levy, S. (1950). Figure drawing as a projective t e s t .

In L.E. Abt & L. Beliak (Eds.), Projective
psyc ho log y (pp. 257-297). New York: K n o p f .
Levy, S. (1958). Projective figure d r a w i n g . In E.F.

Hammer (Ed.), The clinical application of
projective drawings, (pp. 83-112, 135-161).
Springfield, IL: Charles C T h o m a s .
Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the

drawing of the human figure. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. T h o m a s .
195
Machover, K. (1951). Drawings of the human f i g u r e : A

method of personality investigation. In H.H.
Anderson & G. Anderson (Eds.), An introduction
to projective techniques (pp. 341-369) . Englewood
C l i f f s , N J : Pr entice-Hall.
Machover, K. (1953). Human figure drawings of children.

Journal of Projective Techniques, 17, 85-91.
Machover, K. (1958). Adolescent case study: A disturbed

g i r l . In E.F. Hammer (Ed.), The clinical
application of projective drawings (pp. 130-134).
Springfield, IL: Charles C. T h o m a s .
Malchiodi, C . A. (1998). Understanding children's

dr aw i n g s . New York: Guilford P r e s s .
M a r z o l f , S. S., & Kirchner, J. H. (1970).

Characteristics of house-tree-person drawings by
college men and w o m e n . Journal of Projective
Techniques and Personality Ass e s s m e n t , 34, 138-
145.
Marzolf, S. S., & Kirchner, J. H .(1972).House-tree-

person drawings and personality t r a i t s . Journal of
Personality A s s es sm ent , 36, 148-165.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New

Y o r k : Harper and R o w .
McElhaney, M. (1969). Clinical psychological assessment

of the human figure drawing. Springfield, I L :
Charles C Thomas.
McPhee, J. P . , & Wegner, K. W. (1976). Kinetic-family-

drawing styles and emotionally disturbed childhood
b e h a v i o r . Journal of Personality A s s e s s m e n t ,
40(5), 487-491.
Michal-Smith, H. & Morgenstern, M. (1969). The use of

the H-T-P with the mentally retarded child in a
hospital c l i n i c . In J.N. Buck & E.F. Hammer
technique: Variations and applications. Los
196
Morena, D. (1981). The healthy drawing. In G. Groth-

Marnat & D. Morena (Eds.), Handbook of
psychological ass e s s m e n t : A practical m a n u a l .
Unpublished manuscript, pp. 61-7 6.
Mundy, J. (1972). The use of projective techniques with

children. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), Manual of child
psychopathology (pp. 7 91-819). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Mursell, G. R. (1969). The use of the H-T-P with the

mentally d ef i c i e n t . In J.N. Buck & E.F. Hammer
technique: Variations and ap plications. Los
Angeles: Western Psychological S e r v i c e s .
Neale, E . L ., & Ro s a l , M. L . (1993). What can art

therapists learn from the research on projective
drawing techniques for children? A review of the
li te rature. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 20, 37-49.
O'Brien, R. P . , & Patton, W. F. (1974). Development of

an objective scoring method for the Kinetic Family
Drawing. Journal of Personality As s e s s m e n t , 58,
156-164.
Palmer, L . , Farrar, A. R . , Valle, M . , Ghahary, N .,

Panella, M ., & Degraw, D . (2000). An investigation
of the clinical use of the house-tree-person
projective drawings in the psychological
evaluation of child sexual abuse. Child
Maltreatment, 5(2), 169-175.
Piotrowski, Z . (1957). Perceptanalysis. New York:

Macmillan.
Pr o u t , H. T . (1983). School psychologists and social-

emotional assessment tech ni que s: Patterns in
training and u s e . School Psychology Review, 12,
377-383.
Reynolds, C. R. (1978). A quick-scoring guide to the

interpretation of children's kinetic family
drawings (K-F-D). Psychology in the Schools, 15,
489-492.
197
Reznikoff, M . , & Nicholas, A. (1958). An evaluation of

the human figure drawing indicators of paranoid
pathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20,
395-397.
Reznikoff, M. A . , & Reznikoff, H. R. (1956). The family

drawing test: A comparative study of children's
dr aw i n g s . Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12, 167-
169.
Rodgers, P. J. (1992). A correlational-developmental

study of sexual symbols, actions, and themes in
children's kinetic family and human figure
d r a w i n g s . Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.
Schildkrout, M. S., Shenker, I . R . , & Sonnenblick, M.

(1972). Human figure drawings in adolescence. New
York: B r u n n er/ Ma zel .
Schultz, D . , & Schultz, S. E . (1998). Theories of

personality. Pacific Grove, CA: B r o o k s / C o l e .
Shaw, J. (1992). A developmental study on the kinetic

family dra wings for a nonclinic Black child
population in the midwestern region of the United
S t a t e s . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Andrews
University, Berrien Springs, M I .
Shearn, C . R . , & Russell, K. R. (1969). Use of the

family drawing as a technique for studying parent-
child inter act io n. Journal of Projective
Techniques and Personality As s es sme nt, 33, 34-44.
Shneidman, E. S. (1958). Some relationships between

thematic and drawing m a t e r i a l s . In E.F. Hammer
(Ed.), The clinical application of p roj ective
dra wings (pp. 620-627). Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.
Sims, C . A. (1974) . Kinetic family drawings and their

family relations indicator. Journal of Clinical
198
Thompson, L. V. (1975). Kinetic family drawings of

adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, CSPP, San
Fran, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts I nternational,
3 6 (06 ), 3077.
Tokuda, Y . (1980). Theory and practice of image art

psychotherapy. Confinia Psychiatrica, 2 3 ( 4 ), 193-
208.
Urban, W. H. (1963). The draw-a -person catalogue for

interpretative a n a l y s i s . Los A n g e l e s : Western
Van Hutton, V. (1994). House-tree-person and draw-a-

person as measures of abuse in chi l d r e n : A
quantitative scoring system. Odessa, F L :
Psychological Assessment R e so urc es.
Vass, Z . (1998). The inner formal structure of the

h-t-p dra wi n g s : An exploratory study. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 54, 611-619.
Waehner, T . S. (1946). Interpretation of spontaneous

drawings and p a i n t i n g s . Genetic Psychology
M o n o g r a p h s , 33, 3-70.
Wenck, L. S. (1977). House-tree-person d r a w i n g s : An

illustrated diagnostic h a n d b o o k . Los A n g e l e s :
Western Psychological Se rvi ces .
West, M. M. (1998). Meta-analysis of studies assessing

the efficacy of projective techniques in
discriminating child sexual a b u s e . Child Abuse &
Neglect, 22(11), 1151-1166.
Wolk, R. L. (1969). Projective drawings (H-T-P) of aged

p e o p l e . In J.N. Buck & E.F. Hammer (Eds.),
Advances in the house-tree-person tech niq ue :
Variations and app lications. Los A n g e l e s : Western
Psychological S erv i c e s .
Wysocki, B. A . , & Whitney, E. (1965). Body image of

crippled children as seen in draw-a-person test
behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 21, 4 99-
504 .
199
Zimmerman, J . , & Garfinkle, L. (1942). Preliminary

study of the art productions of adult psychotics.
Psychiatric Quar ter ly, 16, 313-318.
V I T A
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
1972: Bachelor of Science

Ferris State University
Majored in Data Processing
1994: Master of Arts

Andrews University
Maj ored in Community Counseling
2003: Doctor of Philosophy

Andrews University
Majored in Counseling Psychology
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT:
1972-1976,
1985-2001: Nineteen years in the computer field as a
computer programmer/analyst, working in
Michigan and Indiana
2000-2001: Limited licensed psychologist in a private

practice in Michigan
2001-2002: Psychology intern at a hospital in

Illinois for the doctoral internship
200

A Comparison of The Emotional Indicators On The House-Tree-Person PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Comparison of The Emotional Indicators On The House-Tree-Person PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Comparison of The Emotional Indicators On The House-Tree-Person PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the dissertation about?

What is the dissertation about?

What methods were used in the study?

What methods were used in the study?

Andrews University

Digital Commons @ Andrews University

A Comparison of the Emotional Indicators on the

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations

Andrews University Digital Library

Please honor the copyright of this document by

A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Denise Ann Stoddard

APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:

Chair: Nancy J. Carbonell D e a n X School of Ed^cat ion

A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON

Denise Ann Stoddard

Chair: Dr. Nancy J. Carbonell

Title: A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON THE

Name of researcher: Denise Ann Stoddard

Name and degree of faculty chair: Nancy J. Carbonell, Ph.D.

Date completed: August 2003

Robert Burns, author of the Kinetic-Family-

Drawing, -has devised a projective test called the

Kinetic-House-Tree-Person drawing. He has taken the

House-Tree-Person projective technique and changed the

instructions to include all of the figures on one page and

also to include an action. In Burns's book on the K-H-T-P

he claimed that his drawing gives a better clinical picture

of the subject than the H-T-P. However, there is no

research that compares the two tests for clinical

The H-T-P and K-H-T-P were administered to 204

college students 18 years of age and older. These students

came from one university in Michigan and one in Illinois.

They were a non-clinical sample, meaning that they were not

in therapy. Emotional indicators were extracted from the

drawings, and then the indicators were analyzed using the

Chi Square statistic called the McNemar test.

There were 499 different emotional indicators found

on the drawings, and 108 indicators were found to be

si gnificant. There were 74 indicators that were found

significantly more often on the H-T-P than on the K-H-T-P.

There were 34 indicators that were found significantly more

often on the K-H-T-P than on the H-T-P. The H-T-P had

indicators in the categories of general drawing

characteristic, house, tree, and person. The K-H-T-P had

indicators in all of those categories and also in actions,

styles, and s y m b o l s . The H-T-P had more than twice as many

indicators as the K - H - T - P . The category that had the most

indicators on the H-T-P and 32% on the K - H - T - P .

The H-T-P and K-H-T-P differ in the emotional

indicators that are evoked from the drawings. With the

H-T-P having more than twice as many indicators as the

K-H-T-P, it is shown to be a stronger projective technique