Family drawing and psychological vulnerability in Children’s representations of parental divorce

Figures & data

Table 1. Variables coding and categories of the drawing interpretation parameters

Graphical aspects	Formal aspects	Content
Stroke	Collocation of the family	Idealization
long	up	mother
short	down	father
straight	left	son 1
edgy	right	son 2
dashed	corner	Devaluation
Dimension	middle	mother
standard	Collocation of the child	father
big	middle	son 1
extra	left	son 2
small	right	Omissions
Position	corner	mother
horizontal	Family	father
vertical	real	son 1
Pressure	ideal	son 2
decisive	The less good character	none
excessive	mother	Adding elements
weak	father	father
	son 1	son
	son 2	none
	none	other
	The saddest character	Blackening
	mother	yes/no
	father	Erasure
	son 1	yes/no
	son 2
	none

Table 2. Comparison of the graphical aspects of family drawings between groups

GRAPHICAL ASPECTS		Nuclear (N = 50)		Separated (N = 50)		Diff.	Diff. %
Stroke	long	16	(32%)	16	(32%)	0	(0%)
	short	34	(68%)	33	(66%)	1	(2%)
	straight	28	(56%)	22	(44%)	6	(12%)
	edgy	13	(26%)	20	(40%)	−7	(14%)
	dashed	9	(18%)	7	(14%)	2	(4%)
Dimension	standard	21	(42%)	13	(26%)	8	(16%)
	big	1	(2%)	4	(8%)	−3	(−6%)
	extra	0	(0%)	0	(0%)	0	(0%)
	small	28	(56%)	32	(64%)	−4	(−8%)
Position	horizontal	41	(82%)	45	(90%)	−4	(−8%)
	vertical	9	(18%)	4	(8%)	5	(10%)
Pressure	decisive	41	(82%)	43	(86%)	−2	(−4%)
	excessive	1	(2%)	6	(12%)	−5	(10%)
	weak	8	(16%)	0	(0%)	8	(16%)

* in bold significant differences

Table 3. Comparison of the formal aspects interpretation of family drawings

FORMAL ASPECTS		Nuclear (N = 50)		Separated (N = 50)		Diff.	Diff. %
Collocation of the family	up	2	(4%)	1	(2%)	1	(2%)
	down	24	(48%)	26	(52%)	−2	(−4%)
	left	5	(10%)	5	(10%)	0	(0%)
	right	0	(0%)	1	(2%)	−1	(−2%)
	corner	2	(4%)	2	(4%)	0	(0%)
	middle	17	(34%)	16	(32%)	1	(2%)
Collocation of the child	middle	27	(56%)	24	(48%)	3	(8%)
	left	6	(13%)	10	(20%)	−4	(−8%)
	right	15	(31%)	10	(20%)	5	(11%)
	corner	0	(0%)	1	(2%)	−1	(−2%)
Family	ideal	18	(36%)	46	(92%)	−28	(56%)
	real	32	(64%)	3	(6%)	29	(58%)
The less good character	mother	6	(12%)	2	(4%)	4	(8%)
	father	13	(26%)	9	(18%)	4	(8%)
	son 1	7	(14%)	10	(20%)	−3	(−6%)
	son 2	11	(22%)	16	(32%)	−5	(10%)
	none	13	(26%)	12	(24%)	1	(2%)
The saddest character	mother	5	(10%)	4	(8%)	1	(2%)
	father	1	(2%)	2	(4%)	−1	(−2%)
	son 1	7	(14%)	5	(10%)	2	(4%)
	son 2	33	(66%)	36	(72%)	−3	(−6%)
	none	4	(8%)	2	(4%)	2	(4%)

*in bold significant differences

Table 4. Comparison of the content of family drawings

CONTENT		Nuclear		Separated		Diff.	Diff. %
Idealization	mother	18	(36%)	17	(34%)	1	(2%)
	father	22	(44%)	20	(40%)	2	(4%)
	son 1	9	(18%)	8	(16%)	1	(2%)
	son 2	1	(2%)	3	(6%)	−2	(−4%)
Devaluation	mother	3	(7%)	15	(30%)	−12	(23%)))
	father	9	(20%)	9	(18%)	0	(2%)
	son 1	13	(30%)	13	(26%)	0	(4%)
	son 2	18	(41%)	12	(24%)	6	(17%)
Omissions	mother	0	(0%)	2	(4%)	−2	(−4%)
	father	0	(0%)	2	(4%)	−2	(−4%)
	son 1	2	(4%)	4	(8%)	−2	(−4%)
	son 2	17	(34%)	15	(30%)	2	(4%)
	none	33	(66%)	26	(52%)	7	(14%)
Adding elements	father	0	(0%)	44	(88%)	−44	(88%)
	son	6	(12%)	3	(6%)	3	(6%)
	none	42	(84%)	0	(0%)	42	(84%)
	other	2	(4%)	5	(10%)	−3	(−6%)
Blackening	yes	35	(70%)	44	(88%)	−9	(18%)
	no	15	(30%)	5	(10%)	10	(20%)
Erasure	yes	3	(6%)	11	(22%)	−8	(16%)
	no	47	(94%)	38	(76%)	9	(18%)

* in bold significant differences