Projective Drawings: Two Areas of Differential Diagnostic Challenge

  • Emanuel F. Hammer


My experience in conducting the annual American Projective Drawing Institute summer workshops suggests that clinicians and clinical students, using projective drawings for differential diagnostic assessment, experience the most uncertainty in two areas: (1) in the differentiation of the vague and shimmering spectrum from schizoid to borderline and latent schizophrenia onto schizophrenic conditions, and (2) in the differentiation of organic brain damage from the former group. With respect to this problem, there are several broad points that may be made in observation of the mixed results that research studies yield in validating projective drawings (as they similarly yield on the other projective techniques).


Personality Assessment Projective Technique Dynamic Stimulus Affective Association Figure Drawing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abel, T. M. Figure drawings and facial disfigurement. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1953, 23, 253–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apfeldorf, M., & Smith, W. J. The representation of the body self in human figure drawings. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1966, 30, 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apfeldorf, M., Walter, C., Kaiman, B., Smith, W., & Arnett, W. A method for the evaluation of affective associations to figure drawings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1974, 38, 441–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender, L. Psychological principle of the visual motor gestalt test. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1949, 70, 167–170.Google Scholar
  5. Buck, J. N. Personal communication, 1970.Google Scholar
  6. Caligor, L. The detection of paranoid trends by the 8 Card Redrawing Test (8 CRT). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1952, 8, 397–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cauthen, N., Sandman, C., Kilpatrick, D., & Deabler, H. D-A-P correlates of Sc scores on the MMPI. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1969, 33, 262–264.Google Scholar
  8. Coopersmith, S., Sokol, D., Beardslee, B., & Coopersmith, A. Figure drawing as an expression of self-esteem. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1976, 40, 368–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craddick, R. Size of Halloween witch drawings prior to, on, and after Halloween. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 16, 235–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craddick, R., & Leipold, W. Note on the height of Draw-a-Person figures by male alcoholics. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1968, 32, 486.Google Scholar
  11. Cramer-Azima, F. J. Personality changes and figure drawings: A case treated with ACTH. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1956, 20, 143–149.Google Scholar
  12. Cutter, F. Sexual differentiation in figure drawings and overt deviation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1956, 12, 369–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, C., & Hoopes, J. Comparison of H-T-P drawings of young deaf and hearing children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1975, 39, 28–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldstein, H., & Faterson, H. Shading as an index of anxiety in figure drawings. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1969, 33, 454–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldstein, K., & Sheerer, N. Abstract and concrete behavior. Psychological Monograph, 1941, 43, 1–151.Google Scholar
  16. Goldworth, S. A. A comparative study of the drawings of a man and a woman done by normal, neurotic, schizophrenic, and brain damaged individuals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1950.Google Scholar
  17. Gray, D. M., & Pepitone, A. Effect of self-esteem on drawings of the human figure. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 452–455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffith, A., & Peyman, D. Eye-ear emphasis in the DAP Test as indicating ideas of reference. In B I. Mur-stein (Ed.), Handbook of projective techniques. New York: Basic Books, 1965.Google Scholar
  19. Gutman, B. An investigation of the applicability of the human figure drawing in predicting improvement in therapy. Unpublished doctoral thesis, New York University, 1952.Google Scholar
  20. Hammer, E. An investigation of sexual symbolism: A study of H-T-P’s of eugenically sterilized subjects. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1953, 17, 401–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammer, E. F. (Ed.). The clinical application of projective drawings. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1958.Google Scholar
  22. Hammer, E. Critique of Swensen’s “Empirical evaluation of human figure drawings. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1959, 23, 30–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Irgens-Jensen, O. Problem drinking and personality: A study based on the Draw-a-Person Test. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1971.Google Scholar
  24. Kamino, D. K. An investigation of the meaning of the human figure drawing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1960, 16, 429–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klopfer, W. “Will the real Rorschach please stand up?” Contemporary Psychology, 1972, 17, 25–26.Google Scholar
  26. Koppitz, E. M. Psychological evaluation of children’s human figure drawings. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1968.Google Scholar
  27. Lakin, M. Formal characteristics of human figure drawings by institutionalized and non-institutionalized aged. Journal of Gerontology, 1960, 15, 76–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Landisberg, S. Personal communication, 1973.Google Scholar
  29. Levy, Minsky, and Lomax. In preparation, 1978.Google Scholar
  30. Lord, M. Activity and affect in early memories of adolescent boys. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1971, 35, 418–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ludwig, D. Self-perception and the Draw-a-Person Test. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1969, 33, 257–261.Google Scholar
  32. Machover, K. A case of frontal lobe injury following attempted suicide. Rorschach Research Exchange, 1947, 11, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Machover, K. Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neal, J. Encephalitis: A clinical study. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1942.Google Scholar
  35. Niebuhr, H., Jr., & Cohen, D. The effect of psychopathology on visual discrimination. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Phillips, L. Human adaptation and its failures. New York: Academic Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  37. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Psychology, Psychological testing in diagnosing cerebral pathology. 1960, 811–812.Google Scholar
  38. Roback, R. Depression and size of the drawn human figure. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 71, 416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt, L. D., & McGowan, J. F. The differentiation of human figure drawings. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 23, 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shaskan, D., Yarnell, H., & Alper, K. Physical, psychiatric and psychometric studies of post-encephalitic Parkinsonism. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorder, 1943, 96, 653–662.Google Scholar
  41. Stoer, L., Corotto, L., & Cormutt, R. The role of visual perception in the reproduction of Bender-Gestalt designs. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1965, 29, 473–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swensen, C. H. Empirical evaluations of human figure drawings. Psychology Bulletin, 1957, 54, 431–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Swensen, C. H., & Sipprelle, C. N. Some relationships among sexual characteristics of human figure drawings. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1956, 30, 224–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tolor, A. Teachers’ judgments of the popularity of children from their human figure drawings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1955, 11, 158–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vane, J., & Eisen, V. The Goodenough D-A-P test and signs of maladjustment in kindergarten children. In B. I. Murstein (Ed.), Handbook of projective techniques. New York: Basic Books, 1965.Google Scholar
  46. Vernier, C. M. Projective test productions: I. Projective drawings. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1952.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emanuel F. Hammer
    • 1
  1. 1.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations