University of Montana University of Montana

ScholarWorks at University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana

Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School

1967

DAP: A study in acceptance DAP: A study in acceptance

Richard H. Ruth The University of Montana

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Ruth, Richard H., "DAP: A study in acceptance" (1967). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5722. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5722

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact scholarworks@mso.umt.edu.

fb© ©AP* A Study in Apceptance

%

H. Hath

E* A*- University ©f California, Santa Barbara, 1951

Presented in p artia l falfilliaerit of the requirements for the decree

Hester of Arts

W & m s m ■#' KOHfANA

Approved by i

UMI Number: EP41189

All rights reserved

IN F O R M A T IO N T O ALL U S E R S The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertation Publishing

UMI E P 41189

Published by ProQ uest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

Microform Edition © ProQ uest LLC.All rights reserved. This w ork is protected against

unauthorized copying under T itle 17, United States Code

ProQ uest LLC.789 East E isenhow er Parkway

P.O . Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

§

i

l i

{If

*

I

mm

, m

m

1O

&

M

- §

1l

a

1959i levy, 1959j MQCfeover, 1949) e«tf

II

*

11

4 II

4I

I

S $

I I

*»■ §

1

1

11

I8

Of the judge himself» {god fcsaee

«*5*

will bo to sera© degree independent of the projected attitude of the

«ortist«„

foilotdiig these SB9t2£sptlcma, a deffl gni used in which reactions of subjects (Ss) to & collection of drawings Were compared with the

reacticna of judges (gs) to the S*e own drawings. ifcfs design was used

to te st the hypothesis that the attitudes under investigation are pro­jected both g&pbic&ttsr, in the drawing of the buammfigure, and ala© verbally, in reacting to drawings made by other people* I t was pre­dieted that these two modes of expression would be peaitively correlated.

the preceding introductory account of the method of the study is esipended upon below* Specific hypotheses were*

1. Ss who show a relatively high degree o f acceptance, in terns

of "like0 i t "dislike*1 of fe\raa» figur© drawings made by other people,

wi l l be the Ss Whose oua drawSnRS o f htinari figures w ill be found

acceptable by ge* Ccmnreraely, §& who show a relatively low degree of

acceptance of others1 drssiingis w ill be the ©flroft So whose own dnaditse

of human figures w ill be rejected by £&.

XX* Sp who show a relatively high acceptance of the male, as com­pared with female, figures, or vice versa, in a collection of drawings,

w ill be the sons §* whose own drawings of the able and female figures

w ill be differentially accepted ty the J$* . these differences w ill be in the sm& direotlon. (fypotbesia XX is not of central importance in the investigation. Xt was introduced in case the sac of the figures drawn raS#jt prove to bo * relawant 'variable iiwOusaeing attitudes of acceptance or rejection).

METHOD

Subject® and Judaea. A ll participant® In the study were wales,

tuxlergraduate students at the University of tomtom, sad were enrolled

in introductory courses in peyehology* the wejority were eighteen to

nineteen years old (65#), freefceen and sephoaorcs (89#), and wssarrAed

(8 » ). Th«y were pursuing a variety of aui or Holds of study, the only

notable concentration being studea&s in Business (28#). these partici­

pant* were not volunteers in tbo usual sense o f the ter*, oinco a cor-

suxber o f hour* of oarticloatioii in exoeriAcnts mm a reouirsstcnt

of their psychology course.

Tbo eaperiaant mm lladted to oaloo in rooponoo to an observation

made by U tkin (1954, p# 486) that! "Figure-Drawing Toot performance

nay ho aoro intimately rolatod to personality functioning in awn than4E aaik luMBMkBUIIk flIS WSBmu*

A ll participants in tho study were toatod individually, in ardor

that any significant findings night reasonably ho applied to the

usual clin ical situation in which tho DAP is used.

Of tho 96 studsnts available for the study, Urn fir st 48 arriv­

ing for tho testa ware used as § s, and tho second 48 as J» (See Pro­

cedure, below),

Materials*

fifty human figure drawings of sale figures wore selected at ran-

dost iron a group of 816 such drawings collected in previous studies.

A ll drawings were node by nales, students at the University o f Montana*

Since each of these students had made two drawing®, one of each sex,

the original collection of 50 drawings was expanded to 100 by including the festal# figure drawing made by any student whose aale drawing ep-

1111

3 *Im

$ *m

gaged .In e<wveneatton> until he indicated bjr some conacienf that he was

waiting for instruction. Each was then provided with an 8300 sheet of

i

I$

8

I t

»*

*f

*ttat O

2

SiW

. ©$

%

1

«I*d mtim hot discuss the study with you now, for fear I t might

infXueaceihe outcome In seme way*” ''As soon m S Indicated be had consisted Me firs t drawing he was

further instructed*

“Shifc*n -fine* ttow take this other sheet, please* dnd draw »• poM r of the sea .opposite, to that of your firs t drawing.” ■

■' while each S was his drawings# E kopta record of the timespent in drawing, ■ counted the oumberof erasures made, and recorded g’e comments, since i t was thought that these variables MghtjU'ovl&e addi­tional data for interpretation- of the Hidings. -

Shea S had completed- his second drawing, i t was removed, end the

firs t drawing was presented to him with the statements“How X am going to ask yon to nee your imagination. X went you to

imagine that this la a real person. Do you think you would like this

person?'*S’s ccmaeats were recorded by g, the f irs t drawing removed, and the

second drawing presented, with the abatements

"Sow, the same for this one. Do you. think you would like this

person?” #

Both

was of presentation ofthe drawings was alternated, S fey-S* to control for any possible -serialeffects. S was neat instructed*

"X have here a collection of drawings made by other people whieh 1

am going to show you one-, a t .-a time* ■ VJbat 1 would like-you to do is simplygive-mo your ■ f irs t - impression of each drawing, fhat is , te ll me firs t whether you think you would like or dislike the person pictured, and then—

in just a word or t*»— Now i t is iB^ortant that you give m your

reactions as quickly as possible, because I am mostly interested in

your fir s t iopression. You can just say «Xee« or "Ho" to le t ate know

.whether you think you would lik e the person or not, and then t e ll m, very briefly, why. ifere*s the first."

lik e and reotjonses ware reoorded no blue orminus by E,

end the reasons given brlefly noted. It happened, quit© infrequently,

that some S tss Unable to ncdco up hie atnd whether or not ho thought he

would lik e a particular person pictured, in which case he was farther

' instructed! -

"Well, suppose that you had to Sly either yes or no, which would i t

be?" In th is nay g was able to record a complete score for each S.

Procedure, Judges, The evaluation of the jgs* drawings by the £& fob-

lowed the identical procedure required of the Ss in evaluating the

drawings in the standard series, as given above.

BEDUm

1, In order to teat the hypothesis that accepting people produce

ecceptablobuman figure drawings, i t was fir s t ceceeoary to demonstrate

that the Ss showed consietent attitudes ofaceeptaae© or rejection of

the drawings in the standard aeries (subject re lia b ility ), as th is was

the criterion laesaure for operationally d e fic it these attitudes. This

re li ab ili ty check was relevant to the assumption (page 5, above), that

judphnta of human figure <h?awings are partially determined by the pro-

existing attitude, or prejudices; of tfa®. judges, and heneo w ill be to ecffiio extent independent of the relative "pull® of particular drawings.

the ap lit-half matted was used, plotting odd 2© even numbered drawings,

and considering responses to male and female figure S w ings separately,

She prcduct-asment correlation coefficishta for responses to male and

£mal$ drawings, a fte r being corrected ty the. S| ansan-Br<nm formula,

were *34 and *54 respectively. Considering the difference between these

values,' i t seemed unlikely that they were obtained as random samples t*m

a coamon population. iEaMhg us© of a z te s t for the difference between

two correlation coefficients (Guilford, 1956), the value obtained was

§ * 2*57, and the hypothesis that a difference th is large arose by chance

- wee rejected a t the *G05 level of confidence* Since the r el iab ili t ies

of rosetlons to sale M feaale drawings differed so greatly, the te s ts

themselves wore considered to be dependant te s ts . Guilford (1956,

p* 473) states that: ,1$h© re lia b ility of a composite score of indepen* ‘

dent te s ts w ill bo approodiiietely a weighted average of the re lia b ilitie s

of the ccaapcaiervte. ” Since the samples in the present case were the seas

sice , an average value use used. Applying Pishor’s £ coefficient for

averaging 0 which d iffe r considerably in sine, the estimate of compo­

s ite re liab ility for reactions to stale and faralo figure drawings was *92,

indicating acceptable s tab ility fur the tra its being meaeured*

2 . E eliability coefficiatits were also confuted to determine the ex­

ten t of agreement amend a l l £$ regarding the acceptability of the §'&

drawings* fh is reliab ility- check was relevant to the assumptions, (page

4, above), that attitudes expressed in human figure drawings are detec­

table by others and hence w ill influence Judgments they make about these

drawings. Again, re liab ility coefficients were computed separately for

dmwdfign of male and female figures, usjn# th© an lit-h e lf method* and ■

that it gsogpal attitudes of accep-

i

I

5SH

"*4I I

% I

f

1sVt

i1 *<t

1o

«k1

55*A

M{. ® n

$'OI

nOS

1 I

§

fI

&

8 3

4

I

iI

i

cnwS

illI f I i

|.

I8P

-17-

Ref or enees

Abt, L, S. A theory of projective psychology. la : Protective jggjwchology. L. E. AH end L. Beliak, editor®, Hew larks Grove Press, 1959.

Albee, 0* W., end Hamlin, R. li> An investigation of the re liab ility end validity of judgments inferred from drawings. <£, c lia . Psy- iM ,., 1949, 5, 389-392.

Berg, E» A. end Peimington, L. A. An introduction to c lin ical psychology. (3rd ad.) Hew Yorks Ronald Press Co., 1966.

Ferguson, G. S. S te jy a t i^ SM&Ste. M P m M m . SB* «dugaHoe. Hew York: McGraw*HUl, 1959.

Fisher, 3 ., and Fisher, Rhoda. feet of certain assumptions regarding figure drawing analysis. £. abnora. see. Psychol. . 1950, 45 727-732.

Fisher, S ., and Cleveland, 8. E. Body image and personality. Princeton: D, Fan Hostrund, 1958.

Ckdlford, J . P. Fundas^ntal s ta tis tic s in psychology and education.Hew York: McGraw-Hill, 195^

Levy, S. Figure drawing as a protective te s t. In L. E. Abt and L.Beliak, Projective psychology. Hew York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959.

Kachover, K* g^eonaH&g M SM of $he SSHS*Springfield, 211.* Thomas, 1949.

Murray, H. A. for &ie ihemajde., m & S S & m *£§&• Cambridge:Harvard Univ. Press, 1943.

Rapaport, P ., Schafer, R., and G ill, M« Diagnostic Psychological Testing. Vol. I I , Chicago: Year Bock Publ^here, i94o,

Rogers, C. H, Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton M ifflin, 1951.

Rorschach, H. |^ s ||a g a o s |,i£ a , & dia/i&ostic £gs£ bggeg on perception.Bam: Huber, 1942*

Schafer, R. Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach testing . Hew York: Gruae and Stratton, 1954*

Schmidt, L. D. and McGowan, J.F . The differentiation of human figure drawing©. £, consult. Psychol.. 1959, 23, 129-133.

Sheire, Mary E. Examiner variables in human figure drawings. Unpublished Ma thesis, University of Montana, 1945.

%** 4* the IftgbuttHi #1 tivtifctie i f Jutpssfc# #f pgfe*i«Rt *»d hoe gmtlaht status from hamgss figure 1* Mii*tafe* *$*§% at, $$mm* ‘

toSMxm* %* •’&*. -fb& ftp* to fts »« t* ttotem ,3$f&*

Mmmm* 4% ■$* Mpte&mi #£ toom '&&&* MgsMk*Si-# *3&4&* ' ■ ■ ' ■'

$&$?* A. Mgosgggto i f <%&34ra&»* pop^miW -Mm thei? &MM &«»*&I* » i * IS55* If* S$*a$fc*

i*. hut ta u * #* B*t■ m m » « H*t (Memr* e*i &&*&*««> p*b.«$& napaer, S.i Persjan iitg. m m m mmmMmn*. Bm tm kt ite$#rttsi* ■

WeM’mm, Mt PmM3s AM&tige 40ft Perseufr, ggg, gMHit1963, i7(2), $fo, .- - ‘ *

*>19*

Uwmm* ©f like m l # f melt #f the .§$, m& m$p&mmOf Jf t# $8# Of tfeft It*® S0&Aftg»«.

Cl) Swtejest wm m , (i) $ m l $M»stfcgo .0 ) f a t a l o f«&e &fafOo OftOK tei* 14) fa ta l driwingf Of female fig u re eoeepfceft* 0 ) SsM&gjro&ooo i3) m i (4) * m tets& aaafrer 62 -g* *£«&&$&-tMa s»® dtOMtago, (?) fatal mtej&ifii ^ o saCU aratttag*. (a) ft$«& esmj&itig i;*® m » . if) tlfii#ww«o ooiwm (?) m i .

*T **fe ta l

TI

2 ■ : rHale

'5 •8_FcxriaXc

' ' ? • Stgt*

12$4i6?®9

.»&It133415U

wm&&2324 £$ mt?28t?

33.3431M3?

31I?.3845fm44424950 *845I8mmIfl iiml imI.18mmm.5525&4#,40

»0815 28264434m23892816Mm343338145588

293031 26 54 25 18 14

32*ft18

i tm14,18IfI fmmw-84m,um28t?I I

25I ft l0888412116$624m»16I

i fiftoW?*?'

•HU40?

+f£

-na406

40240?*32+14o o43 '#61 40?<414 »+S0-+ »+m.*«#40340540340?00

51m

6644mi t#4441-?46656

94a .59f?6139SO4613

'1338

I t

1,M1632 59 1?9

33 .18 66. m m 16. U .61 t t 54 -3® 61 15 i t 30 614tit*4*5

3?|o.it.X?

8m1

.33

if 1 !Mt +16

14 +1625 +1616 m» *28m. +22.5 +25

a 4161? O t22 0031 a ?23 *05.33 m15 m22 ■m35 m35 40616 40931 0 53? O?15 +13.55 a xto ■ a t43 *0616 +1621 O f4 +19

30 0 2If 4066 401

11 40840 *0613 4-lt14- 411

M I& %$ a§

'Hlfis&tl t

. 'S .M 'W f “ “ ^ ?* r*^ :» .? m . “ ® "•'fl'WHI*?-TR-5!■ ■i,-‘- ^ ~ - y r * g ^ * V f t ' ”4&4tih&

$gt&784944£f?'

tIMMkfc ‘ 1■% 'mm- 1

4®h4i 4 W m i 36-38 0jKHffr 4 *w » 6 33m #m m f 30*X • 4 s m x# * # 6 %?•%) 4 27-29 1*il|||.HJ 'W^f^|T B ■i 24-26 fif* # $ m m 4 21-23 12

« . mm- t SJN22 32i i3 t $ war 4 H *# f22*24 % m m i S2*S4 6

-fr*l 2

m m mlfite« «*kHk+&! 84+ * mm m$*

in*if Im m m #g m . &&&*& ty

M t t

MkteMmbrn ■teu& kM m & k ' .

I # ii m *m %k &§*y& o6 % 3N A if M*& 4 3fc0»- St - J w » $ p*8f |

ii- i©*P I f e t f I4 & 17-29 4j$* |9 4 t 430-34 . 4 SMB ? » * » , |25-29 0 }M » I 1®^0 1220-24 i J5*i? ■ $ * h ? 4

JUit*44 - - 4$<44 ' tm %

4

m ta&e* -mMm (M M tm sX ligiir# impinge W m ak §* M tafeai &ua&<sr o f jfa m m M m I 1#M #iw tegf M ftafc

||l* S£#$se«i$g. t evsr ^^7^^ ~^~'1

*6*#!*jmS5S S3|

Medt&iii ju&aasat s <&£C!>** 1 fvrtT.t* iS tin ■‘Jjjtjggjl * J Pfm

U

-tM * -M 1 * 3 ® ~-4o

$&$i*i» iMMMsp-.0.% Ss* .ai L*

i M t u ^ # A jb .m & M f c f i M

In lot&i m mjftafeW1 #f j$e a,fec©pt4i<ig " *&&&$» £7*9$*

it$Mm

m *

M U»t

■S?*;*

w

I I

Hd ngnt**** !* |f J| «* ;# |i <f «&

m &<te? tfee w M m 0$*$) to w h i m m m if i k i i .li### tototftol lr «&$& J*j§. M t .it $t.0ieeptlBf m I*# tiwito flgss# mmM%- p s itss m skm mm$$M0

i> i ? y as- j-jL-.M Aw'jwij-v kvr^-vm3 - Ji&Sli4BM6® ‘"ti £*gt&a$i

Score placement above ox below. the median. (_+5 »t) iii (ili"fereatial preference for m^e over resale figure drawings by each S, vs different tia l ' aeeeptanee by'Js of ?ach Jj,*©. male.aad female; figure drawings (med­ian ©core, r6 .9 ).

s§> Besponoe© to -©rawing©

i l l

AboveMedian

Judgments of ^ Q Ss» drawing© ■

Below ■ Median

Above median