A Comparison of the Emotional Indicators on the House-Tree-Person Drawings and the Kinetic ...

214 Pages·2016·7.38 MB·English

by  Denise Ann Stoddard

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: https://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. 718.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/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
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
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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
APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:
Chair: Nancy J. Carbonell DeanX School of Ed^cat ion
James Jeffery
Membe
_ ^ . .1 (?- .
Member: Dennis E. Waite Date approved
External ETTxv’a^TmTri noerr*: * (^/ Candice Hollingsead
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON
THE HOUSE-TREE-PERSON DRAWINGS AND THE
KINETIC-HOUSE-TREE-PERSON DRAWING
by
Denise Ann Stoddard
Chair: Dr. Nancy J. Carbonell
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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
KINETIC-HOUSE-TREE-PERSON DRAWING
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.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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
significant. 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 symbols. 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.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................. vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Chapter
I . INTRODUCTION................................... 1
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of the Study....................... 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 LITERATURE..................... 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 Students. . . 46
Miscellaneous H-T-P Research.............. 49
The K-H-T-P ........... 53
Emotional Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . 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
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.