Japanese childrens family drawings and their link to attachment

Kazuko Y. Behrens
a
* and Nancy Kaplan
b
a
Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX, USA;
b
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
(Received 6 February 2009; nal version received 26 February 2011)
This study explored the applicability of family drawings as a tool to estimate
attachment security in a sample of Japanese six-year-olds (N 47), applying
Kaplan and Mains (1986) Family Drawing system. Maternal secure/insecure
attachment status judged by the Adult Attachment Interview predicted family
drawings secure/insecure distinction produced by Japanese six-year-olds.
However, insecure Japanese drawings took forms not seen in the original
Berkeley drawings, such as a lineup of faces alone. Further examination of the
Japanese childrens drawings using global rating scales (Fury, Carlson, & Sroufe,
1997) yielded signicant gender dierences, rarely reported in the attachment
literature, with girls scoring higher in scales that predict attachment security and
boys scoring higher in scales that predict attachment insecurity. However,
attachment security, as captured in the drawings, was not related to attachment
security, observed behaviorally using Main and Cassidys (1988) sixth-year
reunion system. Implications of the ndings are discussed in light of measure-
ments, gender, and culture.
Keywords: cross-cultural attachment; Japan; Adult Attachment Interview; Family
Drawing
Introduction
Cross-cultural validation of behavioral measures of attachment has been accom-
plished through a number of studies based on the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP;
Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; see van IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz,
2008, for a comprehensive review of these studies), the Attachment Q-Sort (AQS;
Waters & Deane, 1985; e.g., Kazui, Endo, Tanaka, & Sakagami, 2000), and the
Main-Cassidy (1988) sixth-year reunion system (Behrens, Hesse, & Main, 2007). A
wide usage of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI: protocol, George, Kaplan, &
Main, 1996; classication system, Main, Goldwyn, & Hesse, 2002) as a representa-
tional measure has been documented in a recent meta-analysis of studies that used
the AAI, exceeding 10,000 AAIs in total, combining various clinical and non-clinical,
world-wide samples (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2009). However, it
may be more dicult to cross-culturally validate childrens non-behavioral or
representational measures of attachment that typically involve children beyond
infancy. One reason is that the attachment behavioral system is not as easily
activated in middle childhood as in infancy, because of the older childs growing
*Corresponding author. Email: kazuko.behrens@ttu.edu
Attachment & Human Development
Vol. 13, No. 5, September 2011, 437450
ISSN 1461-6734 print/ISSN 1469-2988 online
2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14616734.2011.602252
http://www.informaworld.com
ability to represent their caregivers in their mind, even though their linguistic abilities
and overall representational capacities remain relatively limited (Solomon & George,
1999). In addition, assessing childrens attachment representations in one culture by
relying on a measure developed in another may pose special challenges because it
may require translations of subtle behaviors or narratives to capture accurately the
nuances which play an important role in determining the quality of attachment
relationships. The examination of childrens family drawings may provide a means
of understanding how children in a particular culture perceive and represent their
families without the need for linguistic interpretation. Is it possible to estimate,
across cultures, the quality of attachment relationship by examining how children
draw their attachment gures? The present study sought to evaluate the applicability
of the family drawing measure to estimate attachment security/insecurity of Japanese
children, a sample that has not been targeted before.
Historically, childrens drawings have long been of interest, not only to artists
who appreciate their genuinely creative and artistic expression, but also to educators
and researchers. These educators and researchers use them as a tool to assess
intelligence (Goodenough, 1926; Goodnow, 1977; Scott, 1981), or to better
understand general cognitive development (e.g., Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). Lowenfeld
and Brittain (1987) discussed drawings in terms of general developmental stages, and
recognized common characteristics based on motor or perceptional skills and
cognitive abilities. Variation observed in the drawings produced by young children is
generally understood to reect variation in their level of intellectual or perceptual
growth, as well as dierences in their actual experiences (Lowenfeld & Brittain,
1987). Clinicians also use childrens drawings, primarily as a projective assessment
tool which provides a window into the childs inner world and feelings that the child
cannot readily express verbally (Burns & Kaufman, 1970; Hammer, 1981; Koppitz,
1968). Therapists have also used childrens drawings to assess the eectiveness of
therapeutic interventions (e.g., in grieving children; Glazer, 1998).
In describing changes in attachment behavior with age, Bowlby (1969/1982)
discussed the ability of attachment gures represented symbolically (such as in
photographs or letters) to eectively activate or terminate attachment behavior. The
internal working model (IWM) construct proposed by Bowlby (1973) may therefore
be captured in drawings by children that include both the child and his or her
caregivers and the portrayal of their relational legacy in his or her mind. Thus, the
act of drawing families, as opposed to objects or other specic themes, may
suciently activate the attachment system because it provides children a choice of
who to draw (e.g., I want to draw mommy next to me, but not daddy) and how
(e.g. I am going to draw everyone with a BIG smile like one happy family!). The
choice then is likely to reect their IWM above and beyond drawing skills.
Kaplan and Main (1986) originally proposed the idea that children might evince
meaningful dierences in their attachment representations as depicted in their family
drawings. Corresponding to infant attachment classications secure, avoidant,
ambivalent (Ainsworth et al., 1978), and disorganized (Main & Solomon, 1986), they
were able to identify specic drawing patterns that dierentiated each attachment
pattern. Their work resulted in the development of a classication system that
distinguished various patterns of attachment at the representational level.
Fury, Carlson, and Sroufe (1997) reported family drawing data of eightnine-
year-olds from a high risk sample. This study is the rst published replication of
Kaplan and Mains study (1986), and it showed a highly signicant link between
438 K.Y. Behrens and N. Kaplan
drawing classications and the SSP classications (kappa .52, p 5 .001),
controlling for intelligence, life stress, and emotional functioning. Pianta, Longmaid,
and Ferguson (1999) assessed kindergarteners family drawings by rst examining
the presence or absence of discrete features listed by Kaplan and Main, and found
that teacher ratings of social and behavioral competence were meaningfully related
to the childrens drawing classications, controlling for intelligence, ne motor skills,
age, sex, race, or SES.
Fury et al. (1997) additionally developed a series of global rating scales to explore
links among various attachment constructs and psychometrics. The seven point
rating scales consist of Vitality, Family pride, Vulnerability, Role-reversal, Emotional
distance, Tension/anger, and Global pathology. All of the scales were signicantly
related to the childrens attachment history in the expected directions and have
inspired investigators to explore various research questions in diverse samples. For
example, Madigan, Ladd, and Goldberg (2003) applied Fury et al.s scales to
examine family drawings produced by chronically ill children. Madigan et al.
reported that attachment security estimated from the global ratings of seven-year-
olds family drawings matched their earlier SSP attachment classications. Clarke
and colleagues (Clarke, Ungerer, Chahoud, Johnson, & Stiefel, 2002) reported that
family drawings produced by boys diagnosed with attention decit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) scored signicantly higher than control groups in Vulnerability,
Role-reversal, Tension/anger, and Global pathology scales that represented family
disharmony with anger or confusion. Leon and Rudy (2005) reported that childrens
drawings were rated higher in Vulnerability and Role-reversal scales the more their
mothers reported marital/family problems. Fihrer and McMahon (2009) found that
the more episodes of maternal depression children were exposed to, the higher on the
Global pathology scale their drawings scored. Fihrer and McMahon did nd a link
between attachment quality represented on the family drawings and the AAI
although no match was found to the SSP data.
The present study explores whether we can replicate previous ndings in several
Western samples which showed links between family drawings and attachment
security in a sample of Japanese six-year-olds. Specically, we examine for the rst
time whether family drawings that are collected in Japan, following the original 1985
Berkeley study procedure (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), can yield ndings
similar to what were reported in the US 25 years ago. We use the Kaplan-Main
(1986) system and additionally Fury et al.s (1997) global rating scales to assess the 6-
year-olds drawings, which are examined against their reunion behaviors, and their
mothers AAI status. We hypothesize that (1) Japanese childrens attachment
security/insecurity distinction can be identied in family drawings, and such a
distinction can be predicted from (2) the concurrent behavioral measure and (3) the
maternal AAI, and nally (4) global rating scales will yield meaningful dierences
between secure and insecure groups, examining Japanese childrens family drawings,
their reunion data, and their mothers AAI.
Method
Participants
The sample included 47 Japanese motherchild dyads from Sapporo, Japan, after
removing two dyads due to one childs developmental delay and another childs
refusal to draw. The sample included 25 rst born children and 17 boys (M 69.6
Attachment & Human Development 439
months, Range 6179, SD 4.5). Mothers were all married and none worked full
time (M 35.5 years, Range 2946; SD 4.0). Thirty-ve percent were high school
graduates, 12% had completed vocational training after high school, 37% had
completed junior college, and 12% had completed a four-year college. The sample
was considered middle class.
Procedures
Motherchild dyads visited a university laboratory converted to a playroom. As
soon as the child seemed comfortable with the surrounding as judged by the mother,
she left the room for the AAI. The examiner then suggested the child draw,
informally requesting the child to draw something for her as a pleasant pastime
rather than an assignment or test. The examiner set a large drawing pad (50 cm x 65
cm) on a table slightly larger than the drawing paper with a box of colored crayons.
Following the warm-up drawing, the examiner asked the child to draw his or her
family. The examiner afterwards asked the child and noted each gures relation to
the child on the back of the paper. Once the child completed the drawing, the
examiner presented other tasks before age-appropriate attractive toys were brought
in for the child to engage in free play until the mothers return (see Behrens et al.,
2007, for general setup and procedures for the AAI and Main and Cassidy sixth-year
reunion).
Measures
The family drawings were classied according to the Kaplan-Main (1986) system.
Table 1 provides a summary description of the classication criteria. Family
drawings are judged as secure or insecure (avoidant, ambivalent, or disorganized)
1
,
when many of the descriptors under each category are present, while not deviating
from the overall characteristic of each category. Although Japanese childrens
drawings judged secure (Figure 2) were similar to those drawn by US children in
terms of space between gures and their stance with open arms (Figure 3), some of
the Japanese childrens drawings judged insecure were dierent from what had been
seen in the Berkeley sample, including drawings that displayed a lineup of faces alone
(Figure 4).
Drawings were scored by the rst author who was trained in Kaplan and Mains
(1986) system and achieved a sucient level of reliability with Kaplan on a set of 30
slides of childrens family drawings and additional 34 Japanese childrens family
drawings (over 80% agreement). For the current data, Kaplan coded 10 (21%) of the
drawings of the total 47 (kappa .80 for the two-way). For cases of disagreement,
Kaplans codes were used. Because of the randomized and re-assigned subject
number for each drawing, the rst author was blind to the AAI classication as well
as the Main-Cassidy sixth-year reunion classication as was Kaplan.
Each drawing was additionally rated, applying Fury et al.s eight global rating
scales on a seven point scale: (1) Vitality/Creativity was judged based on creativity or
extra work in detailing and care a child invested in completing a picture; (2) Family
pride/Happiness was judged based on childs sense of cohesiveness or belongingness
to the family; (3) Vulnerability was judged based on unusual sizes or exaggerated
body parts; (4) Emotional distance/Isolation was judged based on childs disguised
expression of negative aect or distance from the parent, including a child alone
440 K.Y. Behrens and N. Kaplan
Table 1. Kaplan-Main (1986) Family Drawing classication groups.
Group Characteristics summary
Secure Overall, the family tends to be represented in a welcoming stance. Descriptors:
(1) Figures are grounded or centered; (2) A natural proximity among family
members (i.e., often open-armed, embracing stance); (3) Often, not all
family members are smiling; (4) Figures are individuated; (5) Figures suggest
movement; (6) Real-world elements may be present (i.e., bicycles, a
house, a pet); (7) Figures are complete; (8) Some are notably imaginative
(fantasy elements).
Insecure
Avoidant Overall, the drawings appear to present an invulnerable and happy family.
Descriptors include, for example, arms being absent, lack of individuation
(such as smiley sticker smiles), or lack of movement.
Ambivalent Overall, the drawings present an impression of vulnerability or being
overwhelmed. Descriptors include, for example, unusually large or small
gures, family gures placed very closely together.
Disorganized Overall, the drawings often contain ominous, directly disorganized, or over-
bright elements. In some cases unnished gures (missing body parts) are
portrayed.
Figure 1. Global rating scales comparison between secure and insecure.
Attachment & Human Development 441
Figure 3. Berkeley six-year-olds family drawing judged secure.
Figure 2. Sapporo six-year-olds family drawing judged secure.
442 K.Y. Behrens and N. Kaplan
picture; (5) Tension/anger was judged based on gures that appear to be tense or
closed, including overall carelessness, crossed out gures, or scribbles; (6) Role-
reversal was judged based on size or roles of gures identied in the drawing; (7)
Bizarreness/Dissociation was judged based on elements of unusual marks or symbols;
(8) Global pathology was judged based on overall degree of negativity in terms of the
organization, completeness of gures, colors, detail-ness, aect, and background
scenes.
This part of coding was done by research assistants who were blind to all
information relating to all cases. A primary coder coded 47 drawings and a second
coder independently coded 24 (50%) drawings based on Fury et al.s (1997) global
scale criteria. Among the eight global scales, two scales (Emotional distance/Isolation
and Role-reversal) did not reach signicance and two scales (Vulnerability and
Tension/anger) reached signicance but at low rates of .47 and .60 between two
coders and thus were eliminated from the analyses. Inter-coder agreement for the
remaining four scales, using Pearson correlations, ranged from .68 to .85 (M .75).
As a concurrent behavioral measure, the reunion data (N 42) assessed, based
on Main and Cassidys (1988) system, were examined against the drawing data. Six-
year-olds were classied as secure with the mother when they showed no changes in
aect or behavior upon reunion, engaged in relaxed, uid conversation, and
sometimes increased proximity in a subtle manner. Children were classied as
insecure when, for example, they stiened upon reunion, subtly attempted to avoid
the mother, when they showed immature or some angry behavior toward the mother,
or when children showed controlling or globally anomalous behaviors. All reunions
were coded by the experts of this system (M. Main & E. Hesse), reaching 100%
agreement for inter-rater reliability for major classications.
Figure 4. Sapporo six-year-olds family drawing judged avoidant.
Attachment & Human Development 443
The AAI is a semi-structured, one hour interview, having adults discuss their
childhood experiences with their attachment gures (usually the parents). The AAI
with a translated (and back-translated) protocol was administered to Japanese
mothers, following the standard AAI procedure (George et al., 1996). Transcripts
were then examined in Japanese and coded, according to the classication manual
(Main et al., 2002). Mothers who were generally able to discuss their childhood
attachment experiences openly and truthfully through coherent speech, while
demonstrating that they clearly value attachment experiences, were judged secure. In
contrast, mothers were judged insecure if their speech was marked by striking
incoherence through idealization, preoccupied anger, or a lapse in monitoring or
reasoning with regard to their experiences of loss or trauma.
For the current sample, Japanese transcripts were coded by the rst author, who
had attended three AAI institutes (twice as a student, and once as an assistant to the
trainer). Two-way agreement with another certied Japanese coder across 10
interviews from this sample was 90%, kappa .78, p .01, and disagreements were
discussed and resolved.
Results
Descriptive analyses
For preliminary analyses, a series of Independent-Samples T-test and Pearsons
Correlations revealed that childs gender, childs age, mothers age, and maternal
education level had no eect on attachment group dierences. In contrast, childs
gender was signicantly related to Furys four scales that were examined. Girls
scored signicantly higher than did boys in Vitality (t 4.63, df 45, p 5 .001)
and Family pride (t 4.10, df 45, p 5 .001), whereas boys scored signicantly
higher than did girls in Bizarreness (t 2.99, df 45, p 5 .01) and Global pathology
(t 2.69, df 45, p 5 .05). In addition, mothers age and childs age were
independently signicantly correlated to Family pride (r .30, p 5 .05; r .33,
p 5 .05) respectively, although mothers age and childs age were not signicantly
related. Maternal education level was not related to any variable and thus was
removed from the analyses.
The two-way, secure/insecure distribution of the current sample of 47
participants based on the family drawings was 16 secure (34%) and 31 insecure
(66%). The two-way, secure/insecure distribution of the current sample of available
42 participants based on the Reunion was 20 secure (48%) and 22 insecure (52%).
The two-way, secure/insecure distribution of the current sample of 47 based on the
AAI was 29 secure (62%) and 18 insecure (38%).
Hypotheses testing
As for the two-way secure/insecure distribution, the current sample of Japanese
children did not dier signicantly from Pianta et al.s (1999) nonclinical US sample
of 200 with 75 secure (38%) and 125 insecure (62%), w
2
.18, n.s. Crosstabulation
analyses were conducted to examine categorical agreement between the concurrent
measures. No match was found between family drawing categories and the sixth-year
reunion categories.
Crosstabulation analyses were run to examine categorical agreement of
attachment representation between child measure and maternal measure. Table 2
444 K.Y. Behrens and N. Kaplan
shows the secure vs. insecure two-way agreement between family drawings and the
AAI: 64%, or 30 out of 47 cases agreed, k .33, w
2
(1, N 47) 6.8, p 5 .01.
Expected two-way agreement by chance alone was 47%. That is, in the current
Japanese sample, children with mothers with secure states of mind produced more
secure (and less insecure) drawings than expected.
In a series of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), each of the items on the global
rating scale was entered separately as a dependent variable (DV). Family drawing 2-
way (secure/insecure) and childs gender were entered as an independent variable
(IV), whereas mothers age and childs age were entered as covariates. Because Fury
et al.s global rating scales are known to be highly interrelated (Fury et al., 1997;
Madigan et al., 2003), we used the Roms (1990) procedure to control for Type I
error
2
. There was a signicant group dierence on Vitality, Family pride, Bizarreness,
and Global pathology, after controlling for Type I error. Secure family drawings were
rated signicantly higher in Vitality and Family pride than insecure family drawings
(F 13.21, df 1, p .001; F 11.43, df 1, p .002, respectively). Secure
family drawings were rated signicantly lower in Bizarreness and Global pathology
than insecure family drawings (F 19.01, df 1, p .000; F 12.82, df 1,
p .001, respectively). Figure 1 presents a simple mean scores comparison of these
four scales between the secure group and the insecure group. No signicant main
eect was found, taking childs gender into account, controlling for mothers age and
childs age, for Reunion 2-way, nor AAI 2-way.
Discussion
This study explored whether childrens family drawings could be reliably applied as a
measure from which to estimate attachment security in another culture. Specically,
we examined whether Kaplan and Mains (1986) Family Drawing system, developed
in the US over 20 years ago, could be applicable to todays Japanese sample. It is
also to be noted that this is not only the rst family drawing study that applied the
Kaplan-Main system in Japan but also the only study to date in which children drew
Table 2. The non-forced secure/insecure two-way attachment classication agreement
between children assessed on the family drawings and mothers assessed on the AAI.
AAI
Family Drawing Secure Insecure Total
Secure
Count 14 2 16
(Expected) (10) (6)
% of total 30% 4% 34%
Insecure
Count 15 16 31
(Expected) (19) (12)
% of total 32% 34% 66%
Total
Count 29 18 47
% of total 62% 38% 100%
Note: k .33, w
2
(1, N 47) 6.8, p 5 .01.
Attachment & Human Development 445
their families while their mothers were undergoing the AAI, in the exact same way
Berkeley children participated in the family drawing task (Main et al., 1985). Results
showed that drawings produced by Japanese children were distinguishable by
features that are characteristics of a broad secure/insecure distinction. When the
secure/insecure distribution was compared with one comparable (nonclinical) US
study that employed the Kaplan-Main system (Pianta et al., 1999), the distributions
did not signicantly dier, indicating that this system appears to be applicable across
cultures and times, supporting our rst hypothesis. However, when we examined
categorical secure/insecure agreements with concurrent attachment measures, the
ndings were mixed. Maternal AAI secure/insecure status did predict secure/insecure
distinction identied in family drawings, indicating the AAIs robust predictability of
the osprings attachment security even in the early middle childhood reported
elsewhere (e.g., Behrens et al., 2007), thus supporting the third hypothesis. No match
was found, however, between the reunion data and the family drawings, thus the
second hypothesis was not supported. Finally, Fury et al.s (1997) scales did produce
meaningful results, distinguishing between secure/insecure groups of the drawings
but not the reunion or the AAI data, partly supporting our nal hypothesis. Further,
rather unexpectedly, we found gender dierences applying these scales to Japanese
drawings for the rst time.
As a measurement of attachment, it is premature to claim that the Kaplan-Main
Family Drawing system is validated based on the current ndings. Although
Japanese mothers AAI did predict secure/insecure quality judged on their childrens
family drawings, much stronger concordance was found in the same sample between
the AAI and the Main-Cassidy sixth-year system even at the subclass level (Behrens
et al., 2007) but not between the reunion data and the drawings. One interpretation
of such a discrepancy is that six-year-olds may still struggle to maintain consistent
strategies in two dierent modalities of attachment measures (behavioral and
representational). Nevertheless, evidence of the intergenerational transmission of
attachment found between the AAI and a seemingly simple drawing of a family is
still remarkable. Here it might be intriguing to draw parallels between the Kaplan-
Main system and the AAI classication system (Main et al., 2002) to dene, for
example, secure. In general secure-autonomous speakers, during the AAI, can
describe their childhood relationships with their parents openly, thoughtfully, in a
balanced way, while giving clear indications of valuing attachment relationships and
experiences. Similarly, secure drawings often show open-arms that indicate
welcoming of family members, not unrealistic or identical gures, the position of
each gure is natural or balanced, and presents an overall impression of the family as
genuine and essentially calm and content with rm footing or centered on the
drawing paper. However, also puzzling is that in both nonclinical samples that used
the Kaplan-Main system (e.g. Pianta et al., 1999), insecure family drawings
overrepresented the samples. It is possible that the Kaplan-Main Family Drawing
system simply needs to be updated or revised to perhaps include more markers or
redene some descriptors.
Fury et al.s (1997) global rating scores examining childrens family drawings
have been used more widely in a number of recent studies (e.g., Clarke et al., 2002;
Fihrer & McMahon, 2009; Madigan et al., 2003), in part possibly because these
scales are much more easily accessible compared to the Kaplan-Main (1986) system.
Because Fury et al.s global rating system was developed considering the markers
that Kaplan and Main originally identied while giving attention to the context and
446 K.Y. Behrens and N. Kaplan
patterns of specic signs, Fury et al.s systems close relations to the Kaplan-Main
system were expected, and thus found. However, Fury et al.s scales did not predict
AAI security in this study, as Fihrer and McMahon (2009) did. Furthermore, Fury
et al.s global rating scales failed to show any link to attachment security judged on
the sixth-year reunion, although previously had shown a link to the SSP (Madigan
et al., 2003). Because Fury et al. originally developed this system for eightnine-year-
olds, and both Madigan et al.s and Fihrer and McMahons samples are average
seven-year-olds, it is possible Fury et al.s system may not eectively predict
attachment security construct of slightly younger children as in the current sample of
six-year-olds. Fihrer and McMahons mixed results that showed a link to the AAI
but not to the SSP and the current studys ndings showing a link only to the
drawing data still raise a question of validity of this measure as an independent
measure of attachment at the present time.
Interestingly, in the present study, gender dierences were found, using Fury
et al.s (1997) global rating scales. Scott (1981), measuring childrens intelligence with
the drawing test, found that girls consistently outperformed boys in drawing a
human gure, especially when drawing a woman gure. Pianta et al. (1999)
previously suggested possible gender dierences in drawings which Fihrer and
McMahon (2009) did not nd in their study, employing the Fury et al. system. In the
current sample, girls scored higher than boys in scales that are indicative of
attachment security (Vitality and Family pride) and scored lower than boys in scales
that are indicative of attachment insecurity (Bizarreness and Global pathology). What
is most intriguing in the current ndings is that despite notable gender dierences
found in Fury et al.s scales, gender was not related to attachment security in any
other measures that were applied to this sample. This could indicate that some
technical aspects of drawing a family such as actual drawing skills, especially of a
human gure as Scott claimed, can inuence rating scores of certain scales,
developed by Fury et al. Perhaps Japanese girls are more precocious and mature in
their drawing skills, compared to boys of the same age group. Or girls in Japan are
more encouraged to draw as a pastime (thus more experienced) whereas boys are
more encouraged to be physically active. Fury et al.s scales may be useful in
uniquely capturing dierences in such socialization practices.
Previously, some cultural dierences in childrens drawings were found when
Japanese seveneight-year-olds drawings of a person were compared with those of
their American counterparts (La Voy, Pedersen, Reitz, Brauch, Luxenberg, &
Nofsinger, 2001). The dierences that La Voy et al. (2001) noted, such as fewer
smiles and more detailed attentions to hairstyles or ngernails in Japanese childrens
drawings than American childrens, however, were not found in the current Japanese
sample. Instead, what appeared to be unusual to family drawings, not seen in other
American or European samples to date (M. Main, personal communication, May
11, 2009) were (1) portraits of only head(s), as stated above, and (2) a number of
children did not include any person gure in their family drawings. At the moment, it
is not entirely clear if such features can be explained by culture specic phenomena.
Note it is possible that children of this age were learning to draw portraits (of
heads) in their schools, or that more Japanese children than those in other countries
are unwilling to undertake tasks where they are uncertain of their skills, perhaps to
avoid feeling embarrassed.
A number of limitations in the current study must be reported. First, the sample
size is small. Second, this study did not include potentially important tests of
Attachment & Human Development 447
psychometric properties such as intelligence or general drawing ability, which can
possibly aect the quality of drawings. Third, warm-up drawings that children
drew prior to being asked to draw family were not examined. Such information can
be meaningful, particularly when drastic changes in the quality of drawings were
detected.
In conclusion, examining childrens family drawings as a measure of attachment
still requires caution so as not to rely on it as a sole measure of attachment, in line
with Mains cautions that childrens drawings should be regarded only as correlates
of early attachment (1995, p. 428). However, the exibility of this measure being
able to accompany practically any other validated attachment measures is the
strength that should be appealing to investigators with a wide range of interests. In
addition to exploring a link to gold standard measures (the SSP and the AAI), other
concurrent representational measures for middle childhood as in, for example, the
story stem measure (e.g., Gloger-Tippelt, Gomille, Koenig, & Vetter, 2002) or the
Separation Anxiety Test (SAT; e.g., Kaplan, 1987) may produce associations that
have not been sought out before to our knowledge. Exploring a link between
childrens narratives regarding their attachment gures and their family drawings
may be an exciting endeavor to uncover childrens inner world multi-dimensionally.
When administering a family drawing measure, simultaneous applications of both
the Kaplan-Main system as a categorical measure and Fury et al.s system as a
continuous scales measure, but by dierent coders, may demand more thorough
examinations of childrens drawings in a more comprehensive manner. Fury et al.s
scales yielded intriguing gender dierences, which were not captured in the Kaplan-
Main system. Yet, only the secure/insecure distinction based on the Kaplan-Main
system was found to be related to the AAI security. It is clear that more work is
needed to articulate or enhance the Kaplan-Main system to identify more markers or
redene them, and perhaps explore more precise links to Fury et al.s system. This is
only the rst study of Japanese family drawings, and yet presented forms of drawings
that were not observed before, as noted earlier. It is possible then, cultural
dierences in attachment representations may be distinctively captured in this
drawing method. We hope that this study may encourage cross-cultural attachment
researchers to examine how children from dierent cultures may depict their
representations of families in drawings either as a follow-up in longitudinal study or
as correlates to the concurrent measure.
Acknowledgements
We want to thank the children and their mothers who participated in the study. We also thank
Sherri Haertling who coded family drawings of the entire sample based on Fury et al.s global
rating scales.
Notes
1. To maintain clarity and focus of this study, we present only two-way analyses because
neither three-way nor four-way analyses were signicant for any sets of analyses.
2. Based on their review, Olejnik, Li, Supattathum, and Huberty (1997) conclude that
most of the modied Bonferroni procedures have clear advantages over the traditional
Bonferroni procedure, but dierences are small in the amount of power of
control of Type I error. Their results suggest that Roms (1990) procedure has the
most power.
448 K.Y. Behrens and N. Kaplan
References
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (2009). The rst 10,000 Adult
Attachment Interviews: Distributions of adult attachment representations in clinical and
non-clinical groups. Attachment & Human Development, 11, 223263.
Behrens, K.Y., Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2007). Mothers attachment status as determined by
the Adult Attachment Interview predicts their 6-year-olds reunion responses: A study
conducted in Japan. Developmental Psychology, 43, 15531567.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.
(Original work published 1969)
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Burns, R.C., & Kaufman, S.H. (1970). Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD): An introduction to
understanding children through kinetic drawings. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Clarke, L., Ungerer, J., Chahoud, K., Johnson, S., & Stiefel, I. (2002). Attention decit
hyperactivity disorder is associated with attachment insecurity. Clinical Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 7, 179198.
Fihrer, I., & McMahon, C. (2009). Maternal state of mind regarding attachment, maternal
depression and childrens family drawings in the early school years. Attachment & Human
Development, 11, 537556.
Fury, G.S., Carlson, E.A., & Sroufe, L.A. (1997). Childrens representations of attachment
relationships in family drawings. Child Development, 68, 11541164.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished
protocols, University of California, Berkeley.
Glazer, H.R. (1998). Expressions of childrens grief: A qualitative study. International Journal
of Play Therapy, 2, 5165.
Gloger-Tippelt, G., Gomille, B., Koenig, L., & Vetter, J. (2002). Attachment representations
in 6-year-olds: Related longitudinally to the quality of attachment in infancy and mothers
attachment representations. Attachment & Human Development, 4, 318339.
Goodenough, F.L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York, NY: Harcourt
Brace.
Goodnow, J.J. (1977). Childrens drawings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hammer, E.F. (1981). Projective drawings. In A.I.Rabin (Ed.), Assessment with projective
techniques: A concise introduction (pp. 151185). New York, NY: Springer.
Kaplan, N. (1987). Individual dierences in six-year-olds thoughts about separation: Predicted
from attachment to mother at age one. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
California at Berkeley.
Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1986). Instructions for the classication of childrens family drawings
in terms of representation of attachment. Unpublished manuscript, University of
California, Berkeley.
Kazui, M., Endo, T., Tanaka, A., & Sakagami, H. (2000). Intergenerational transmission of
attachment: Japanese motherchild dyads. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology,
48, 323332.
Koppitz, E.M. (1968). Psychological evaluation of childrens human gure drawing. New York,
NY: Grune & Stratton.
La Voy, S.K., Pedersen, W.C., Reitz, J.M., Brauch, A.A., Luxenberg, T.M., & Nofsinger,
C.C. (2001). Childrens drawings: A cross-cultural analysis from Japan and the United
States. School Psychology International, 22, 5363.
Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W.L. (1987). Creative and mental growth (8
th
ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Leon, J., & Rudy, D. (2005). Family processes and childrens representations of
parentication. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 111142.
Madigan, S., Ladd, M., & Goldberg, S. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words:
Childrens representations of family as indicators of early attachment. Attachment &
Human Development, 5, 1937.
Main, M. (1995). Recent studies in attachment: Overview, with selected implications for
clinical work. In S. Goldberg, R. Muir, & J. Kerr (Eds.),Attachment theory: Social,
developmental, and clinical perspectives (pp. 407474). Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
Attachment & Human Development 449
Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6:
Predictable from infant attachment classications and stable over a 1-month period.
Developmental Psychology, 24, 415426.
Main, M., Goldwyn, R., & Hesse, E. (2002). Adult attachment scoring and classication system.
Unpublished manuscripts, University of California, Berkeley.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A
move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of
attachment: Theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 50(12, Serial No. 209), 66104.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of a new, insecure-disorganized/disoriented
attachment pattern: Procedures, ndings and implications for the classications of
behavior. In T.B.Brazelton & M. Yogman (Eds.), Aective development in infancy.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press.
Olejnik, S., Li, J., Supattathum, S., & Huberty, C.J. (1997). Multiple testing and statistical
power with modied Bonferroni procedures. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 22, 389406.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.
Pianta, R.C., Longmaid, K., & Ferguson, J.E. (1999). Attachment-based classications of
childrens family drawings: Psychometric properties and relationships with childrens
adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 244255.
Rom, D.M. (1990). A sequentially rejective test procedure based on a modied Bonferroni
inequality. Biometrika, 77, 663665.
Scott, L.H. (1981). Measuring intelligence with the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test.
Psychological Bulletin, 89, 483505.
Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). The measurement of attachment security in infancy and
childhood. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,
and clinical applications (pp. 287316). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment. In
J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
application (2
nd
ed., pp. 880905). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Waters, E., & Deane, K.E. (1985). Dening and assessing individual dierences in attachment
relationships: Q-sort methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early
childhood. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment: Theory and
research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(12, Serial No.
209), 4165.
450 K.Y. Behrens and N. Kaplan
Copyright of Attachment & Human Development is the property of Routledge and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.