Title: Big or close-up? Evidence for a proximity and emotion, not size and
emotion effect.
Authors: Andrew K. Dunn*1, Nicola Taylor2 & Thom Baguley1
Email: andrew.dunn@ntu.ac.uk
Email: taylor.nicola64@gmail.com
Email: thomas.baguley@ntu.ac.uk
Institution: 1Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham, NG1
4BU; 2 Independent Researcher
*Corresponding author
1
Abstract
Background: The size and emotion effect is the tendency for children to draw
people/objects with a positive emotional charge larger than those with a negative or
neutral charge. Here we explored the novel idea that drawing size might be acting as
a proxy for depth (physical or perceived), in a 2D environment.
Methods: Forty-two children (aged 3-11 years) chose, from 2 sets of Matryoshka
dolls, a doll to represent a person with positive, negative or neutral charge, which
they placed in front of themselves on a sheet of 3A paper.
Results: We found that the children used proximity and not perceived depth or size,
to indicate emotional charge.
Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with the notion that, in drawings, children
are using size as a proxy for physical closeness (proximity), as they attempt with
varying success to put positive charged items closer to, or negative and neutral
charge items further away from, themselves.
Key words: size and emotion effect; children’s drawings; proximity; depth;
attachment
2
Background
Children understand emotions in drawings from an early age (≈ 4 ears) and begin
representing emotions in the form of simple lines (smiles/frowns on faces) from
about 5 yrs onwards - a skill that becomes increasingly more complex (Cox 2005; Ives,
1984; Morra, Caloni & Amico, 1994; Winston, Kenyon, Stewardson, & Lepine, 1995).
Young children also use object size to represent emotion in their drawings, (see Cox,
2005). The tendency to use object size as an indicator of emotional charge (positive
or negative feelings), towards people and other objects, is called the size and
emotion effect (Cox, 2005). Typically, children (≈ 4-11 years) draw positively charged
(nice/pleasant/liked) objects (e.g. people, apples, dogs) bigger than negatively
charged (nasty/unpleasant /disliked) or neutral objects (Burkitt, Barrett & Davis,
2003; Thomas, Chaigne, & Fox, 1989;). Neutral charged objects are usually drawn the
same size as negative ones (Thomas, Chaigne, & Fox, 1989) though negative objects
are sometimes drawn as smaller than neutral ones (e.g. Burkitt, Barrett & Davis,
2003, 2004). And the effect is sensitive to methodological factors (e.g. drawing on the
same/separate pages; presence/absence of drawing template) which may lead to a
reversal of the effect (i.e. negative figure > positive figure; Cotterill & Thomas, 1990;
Jolley, 1995), loss of the effect or else inconsistency in individual’s performance over
time (Cox, 2005, Jolley, 1995; Strange, Van Papendrecht, Crawford, Candel & Hayne,
2010). Nevertheless the evidence, from our own lab (Rajput, 2006) and published
evidence elsewhere (e.g. Cleeve & Bradbury, 1992; Craddick, 1963; Fox & Thomas,
1990; Ives, 1984; Sechrest & Wallace, 1964) clearly demonstrates that that young
children draw positively charged objects as bigger than those that are negatively
3
charged or neutral (Burkitt, Barrett & Davis, 2003, 2004; Thomas, Chaigne, & Fox,
1989).
Although it is not entirely clear why, it is generally assumed that drawing size acts as
a proxy for emotional content where bigger equals more positive (Cox, 2005).
Another possibility, not previously explored, is that the change in size might reflect a
desire to show preference (emotional charge) by placing the objects in depth. More
specifically, differences in relative object (drawing) size might be an attempt to
represent associated retinal size at different distances (depth) or physical closeness
(proximity), though these need not be mutually exclusive.
Young children are aware of and can represent depth in 2-dimensional (2D) drawings
(Cox, 2005). Thus at 3-4 years children seem to understand that object size is reduce
in distant objects (Pillow & Flavell, 1986), and can use size judgements to determine
object depth in pre-drawn pictures, though not necessarily in their own drawings
(Perara & Cox, 2000). By 5 years children can also use object height (position on the
page) to indicate distance, placing distant objects further up the page than nearer
objects, which they place further down (Freeman, Eiser & Syaers, 1977). They also
position multiple objects above or below each other to convey depth (Cox & Perara,
2001). However, children do not spontaneously draw objects in depth until they are
around 7 years (Cox, 1986), and it is not until 8-9 years that children combine size and
height (Cox & Perara, 2001), use diverging/converging lines (Cox & Littlejohn, 1995)
or foreshortening (Nicholls, 1995), with any success or consistency in their drawings,
without being prompted to do so.
4
In summary, notwithstanding some methodological influences, the evidence shows
that children draw positive charged objects bigger than negative or natural charges
objects, though it is not entirely clear why. Here we propose that the effect might be
an attempt to represent physical distance between the child and the object in
relation to its (the object’s) emotional charge (big = positive charge = close; small =
negative charge = further away). We further suggest that inconsistencies or reversals
(i.e. negative charge smaller than positive and neutral objects or observed) in the
effect reflect the difficulties children experience with producing depth/proximity cues
in 2D space. Here we tested this idea in 3-dimensional (3D) space by asking young
children to select 3 dolls (positive charge, negative charge or neutral charge) from 2
sets (7 piece) of highly similar Matryoshka (Russian) dolls, and to then place them on
a sheet of A3 paper in front of them. We hypothesized that if the children are using
actual size to indicate emotional charge then they should consistently chose bigger
(taller and/or bigger base circumference) dolls to represent positive charge, relative
to dolls chosen to represent negative or neutral charge. However, if they are using
perceived depth as an index of charge, then relative position of the doll should vary
according to the actual size of the doll selected (i.e. a small doll chosen for positive
charge should be placed closer to the child than a larger doll chosen to reflect a
negative charge). If so, the positive doll would subtend a greater visual angle than the
negative charge doll. But if the child is using physical proximity then positively
charged dolls should be placed closer to the child than negative or neutral charged
dolls, irrespective of doll size (height or base circumference).
5
Methods
Subjects: Forty-two children (median age=5yrs 6months; range 3-11years) from a
Derbyshire Montessori nursery class and a Church of England primary group
consented with parental permission, to take part in this experiment. Note the data
was collected latter half of the school year. Following clearance by the Social Science
ethics board (Nottingham Trent University), formal permission to take part in the
study was obtained from the nursery/school and parents (child opt-out) before data
collection began. No child was made to take part if, at testing, they did not want to.
Apparatus and procedure: The children were tested individually in a quiet area away
from any other children. Each child was seated at a table such that the table was
about level with the middle of their stomach and that they could see and reach freely
across the space around them.
Having been seated, it was explained to each the child that in this task they were
going to be asked to choose and pick up 3 wooden dolls (one at a time) from a range
of wooden Russian (Matryoshka) dolls, and that one should represent someone they
liked (positive charge), one should someone they did not like (negative charge) and
one should just be a person someone they neither liked nor disliked (neutral charge).
The 2 sets of (highly similar) Matryoshka dolls were then placed one at a time in
height order (height order direction randomised for each child) in front of them,
along the back edge of a sheet of A3 paper (see Table 1 for details of the dolls). Next
the children were told each time they chose a doll, they should place the doll on the
6
piece of paper in front of them. And that they could choose any doll and place it
anywhere on the paper.
Table 1: here
Before beginning the task, the experimenter first made sure that the children
understood what they were being asked to do and that they still wanted to take part.
All children agreed to take part in the task.
At test, the order of doll section was randomised for each child, and the child was
given a scripted set of selection instructions. These were as follows:
Positive charge doll: “Please can you think of a person you like, once you have
thought of somebody can you choose one of those dolls in front of you that
could be the person that you like. Once you have chosen the doll could you
please place it anywhere you like on the piece of paper in front of you?”
Negative charge doll: “Please can you think of a person you do not like, once
you have thought of somebody can you choose one of those dolls in front of
you that could be that person that you do not like. Once you have chosen the
doll could you please place it anywhere you like on the piece of paper in front
of you?’
Neutral charge doll: “Please can you think of a neutral person, just a person, it
can be anyone at all. Once you have thought of somebody can you choose one
7
of those dolls in front of you that that person. Once you have chosen the doll
could you please place it anywhere you like on the piece of paper in front of
you?”
We used standardised instructions so as to maintain consistency in what was being
asked, however, we were aware that some children might not fully understand what
was meant by like, dislike, or neutral. For this reason we took great pains both before
and during test that the children were as clear as they could be about the terms
being used. For example, where children did not understand the instructions, the
child was reassured, the instructions were repeated and the child encouraged to
make their selection to match the condition. In practice all of the children even the
very young ones, appeared to understand what was being asked of them and what
the terms being used meant before test; they required very little prompting or
additional explanation/support during test.
Following the placement of dolls, four measures were obtained: (1) Doll height – base
to top (cm), (2) Doll base circumference (cm), (3) Physical distance from doll to child
(cm) - a circle was drawn around each doll and the distance from the centre point to
the middle of the child’s seated position was measured. (4) Visual angle (degrees) calculated from the height of the doll and the physical distance where 1°= 1cm at
57cms.
Results: The data set indicated that there is tendency for positively charged dolls to
be slightly bigger (taller and broader) and placed closer to the child than neutral or
8
negatively charged dolls (see Table 2). To explore this formally we ran 4 repeated
measures ANOVAs (height; circumference; distance; visual angle), each with 3 levels
(positive charge, negative charge, neutral charge). Only the analysis for distance was
significant (F(2,82)=5.26; MSE=15.535; P=0.007;
(F(2,82)=0.68; MSE=23.647; P=0.510;
MSE=50.025; P=0.335;
P=0.994; ;
=0.0.855). The analyses for height
=0.0433), circumference (F(2,82)=1.11;
=0.0654) and visual angle (F(2,82)=0.06; MSE=2.383;
=0.000) were not significant. The patterns of results are presented in
Figure 2 with Cousineau-Morey style difference-adjusted confidence intervals
(Baguley, 2012a). These are adjusted so that means with non-overlapping error bars
are different with approximately 95% confidence. As can be seen in Figure 1b) there
is a significant difference between the positive charged dolls and both the negative
and neutral charged dolls (P<0.05) but not between the negative and neutral charged
dolls (P>0.05).
Table 2 about here
Figure 1 about here
Note we have not include age as a covariate here because age is, by definition,
accounted for in the between subjects error term (Baguley, 2012b) accordingly
including age or other individual difference variables as covariates has no influence
on the pattern of results.
9
Discussion
The results indicated that whilst the children are not consistently selecting taller or
wider based dolls, or positioning the dolls in relation to perceived size, they are
placing the positive charged dolls physically closer to them than the negative or
neutral charged dolls. This finding is consistent with our proximity proposal and the
notion that size might be acting as a proxy for physical closeness in 2D figure
drawings.
Although there is evidence for the size and emotion effect, there have been
inconsistencies in the literature, with methodological factors playing an important
role. Indeed, Jolley (1995; Thomas & Jolley, 1998) has argued that the evidence is not
very strong, and is tricky to elicit, for either increased sized for positively charged
items or reduced size for negatively charged items. Furthermore, no effect has been
found where very strong negative or positive feelings might be expected to be
expressed in drawings e.g. in patients with depression (Joiner, Schmidt & Barnett,
1996) or in children that have experience military conflict (Jolley & Vulic-Prtoric,
2001). However, it is should be noted that whilst children’s drawings have proven to
be a useful tool for exploring typical cognitive development, there is a very clear
history of inappropriate interpretation and use of children's drawings as a diagnostic
tool (Cox, 2005). Indeed it is not clear that drawings are the best way to explore
extreme emotional stress (Joiner & Schmidt, 1997). In fact the evidence for their use
as a clinical diagnostic tool does not appear to exist (Flanagan & Motta, 2007). Thus
the absence of a size emotion effect for extreme emotion is not absence of evidence,
for children trying to express emotional charge. Moreover, the real issue surrounding
10
the presence/absence of the size-emotion effect seems to be about methodological
factors such as sample size and procedure. For example, Jolley’s (1995) work used a
repeated measures design but may have been underpowered, having a fairly small
sample size (see Burkitt et al., 2003). Further, since children are not being asked to
directly manipulate size in the drawing tasks then it is likely that the observed effects
will never be very large (they are in effect a shadow cast by the task). On balance,
where attention is paid to methodology, there is reason to believe that children do
tend modulate object size with emotional charge (see Cox, 2005; Burkitt et al., 2003).
The work here was in part motivated to explore the size –emotion effect because of
methodological issues and the idea that size might be acting as a proxy for depth or
closeness. That is, some of the inconsistencies (e.g. reverse findings – negative
charged items being positioned further away than positive or neutral charged items)
because the children are struggling to represent depth/closeness in a 2D drawing. To
operationalize this idea, the emotional charge task was transferred from 2
dimensions to 3 dimensions using dolls instead of drawings. Certainly young children
are aware of depth cues and are able to use them in their drawings (see above; Cox,
2005) but they are limited. Similarly, young children can understand, and do convey,
emotion in pictures but with they are limited. Thus very young children (up to 5/6
years) tend to be more literal in their understanding and generation of emotional
content (e.g. Cox, 2005, Jolley, Cox & Barlow, 2003; Winston et al., 1995). It is also
worth noting that even adults (who have received some training at school) find
representing depth and emotion in 2D scenes difficult (Cox, 2005). Thus by
transforming the task it was possible to allow the children to modulate height, width
11
and depth (perceived and physical) whilst avoiding some of the methodological
difficulties usually associated with the drawing task (see Cox, 2005).
Of course, the approach taken here was not without issue. For example, although
great care was taken, some children (especially the younger ones) may not have fully
understood the task instructions, particularly for the neutral figure. Certainly, some
of the children in this task were very young (3-4 years) and other studies (e.g. Burkitt,
et al., 2003) have used more user-friendly terminology. However, any differences in
age would have accounted for in the between subjects error term of the ANOVA. At
testing there did not appear to be any difficulty with the instructions however, even if
some children did not fully understand what was meant by, for example ‘…a neutral
person’, the results show that positively charged dolls were position physically closer
than negatively charged dolls: differentiating between the positive and negative
charges is consistent with the pertinent literature even if the variable being
manipulated (c.f. proximity rather than size) is not.
Without further research, it remains unclear as to why children would want to
convey emotional charge by manipulating size or proximity. However, it is
conceivable that the distancing effects observed here, might reflect aspects of
attachment, or the processes of attachment, namely safe base/proximity behaviour
(e.g. Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby 1969). If this is true then the distancing effects might
vary with attachment type, attachment stage and possibly even temperament.
Similarly, there might also be cross-cultural differences in the size or presence of the
effect as a function of the culture in which the child is being raised. For example,
12
there should be differences in the magnitude (or presence) of the effect when
comparing between cultures that favour close proximity, increased emotion or
physical contact, in social situations verses those that do not. Quite what those
differences might be is at present unclear and must remain speculative.
Conclusions: It has been shown here that when asked to select dolls taken from two
sets of highly similar Matryoshka dolls, to represent a person with positive, negative
or neutral charge, children aged between 3-11 years, place the positively charged
dolls physically closer to them than the negatively or neutrally charged dolls. This
finding is consistent with the hypothesised proximity proposal and the notion that
size might be acting as a proxy for physical closeness in 2D figure drawings.
Author contribution: AKD conceived and designed the experiment carried out
the analysis and interpretation of data and wrote most of the manuscript
for publication. NT was involved in the initial design, collected all of the
data and write an early draft of the methods section, TB carried out some
additional data analysis, contributed to the interpretation of data and later
drafts of the manuscript.
13
References
Complete book
Calfee, RC, & Valencia, RR (1991). APA guide to
preparing manuscripts for journal publication. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Book chapter, or an article within a book
O'Neil, JM, & Egan, J (1992).
Men's and women's gender role journeys: Metaphor for healing,
transition, and transformation. In BR Wainrib (Ed.), Gender issues across
the life cycle (pp. 107-123). New York: Springer.
Ainsworth, MDS (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In
BM Caldwell & HN Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of Child Development
Research.Vol.3. (pp. 1-94). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baguley, T. (2012a). Calculating and graphing within-subject confidence
intervals for ANOVA. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 158-175.
Baguley, T. (2012b). Serious stats: A guide to advanced statistics for the
behavioral sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Burkitt, E, Barrett, M, Davis, A. (2003). The effect of affective
characterizations on the size of children's drawings. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 21, 565-584.
Burkitt, E, Barrett, M, Davis, A. (2004). The effect of affective
characterizations on the use of size and colour in drawings produced
by children in the absence of a model. Educational Psychology, 24.
315-343.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Separation and Loss. Volume 1: Attachment. New York,
Basic Books.
14
Cleeve, H, Bradbury, RJ. (1992). Children’s productions and judgments of
drawings of people of different importance. Poster presented at the
5th European Conference of Developmental Psychology, Seville.
Cotterill, A, Thomas, GV. (1990). Children’s production and perception of
drawings of emotionally significant topics. Poster presented at the
forth European Conference on Developmental Psychology, University
of Stirling.
Cox, M. (2005). The pictorial world of the child. New York, NY US:
Cambridge University Press.
Cox, MV. (1986). Cubes are different things to draw. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 4, 341-345
Cox MV, Littlejohn, K. (1995). Children’s use of converging obliques in their
perspective drawings. Educational Psychology, 15, 127-139.
Cox, MV, Perara, J. (2001). Children’s use of height and size cues to depict a
projective depth relationship in their pictures. Psychologia, 41, 171182.
Craddick, RA. (1963). Size of Hallowe’en witch drawings prior to, on and
after Hallowe’en. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 16, 235-238.
Flanagan, F, Motta, RW. (2007). Figure drawings: A popular method.
Psychology in the Schools, 44, 257-270.
Fox, T, Thomas, GV. (1990). Children’s drawings of an anxiety-eliciting
topic: Effect on size of the drawing. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 29, 71-81.
15
Freeman, NH, Eiser, C, Sayers, J. (1977). Children’s strategies in producing
3-D relationships on a 2-D surface. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 23, 305-314.
Ives, W. (1984). The development of expressivity in drawing’, British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 152-159.
Joiner, TE, Schmidt, KL. (1997). Drawing conclusions or not from drawings.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 476-481.
Joiner, TE, Schmidt, KL, Barnett, J. (1996). Size, detail, and line heaviness in
children’s drawings as correlates of emotional distress: (more)
negative evidence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 127-141.
Jolley, RP. (1995). Children’s production and perception of visual metaphors
for mood and emotion in line drawings and in art. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Jolley, RP, Vulic-Prtoric, A. (2001). Croatian children’ s experience of war is
not reflected in the size and placement of emotive topics in their
drawings. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 107–110.
Jolley, RP, Cox, MV, Barlow, CM. (2003). What develops and why in British
children’s expressive drawings. Paper presented at the British
Psychological Society (Education section), Manchester.
Morra, S, Caloni, B, d’Amigo, MR. (1994). Working memory and the
international depiction of emotions. Archives de Psychologie, 62, 7187.
16
Nicholls, AL. (1995). Influence of visual projection on young children’s
depictions of object proportions. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 60, 304-326.
Perara, J, Cox, MV. (2000). The effect of background context on children’s
understanding of the spatial depth arrangement of objects in a
drawing, Psychologia, 43, 144-153.
Pillow, BH, Flavell, JH. (1986). Intellectual realism: the role of children’s
interpretations of pictures and perceptual verbs, Child Development,
56, 664-670.
Rajput, M. (2006). Internal representation of affective preferences for
liked, disliked and neutral human figures drawings: representation as
size or distance as a function of emotional preference. Unpublished
undergraduate research project, Nottingham Trent University.
Sechrest, L, Wallace, J. (1964). Figure drawings and naturally occurring
events: Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 42–44.
Strange, D. Van Papendrecht, H, Crawford, E, Candel, I, Hayne, H. (2010).
Size doesn't matter: Emotional content does not determine the size of
objects in children's drawings. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 459-476.
Thomas, G, Chaigne, E, Fox, T. (1989). Children's drawings of topics
differing in significance: Effects on size of drawing. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 7, 321-331.
Thomas, GV, & Jolley, RP. (1998). Drawing conclusions: an examination of
empirical and conceptual bases for psychological evaluation of children
from their drawings. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 127-139.
17
Winston, AS, Kenyon, B, Stewardson, J, Lepine, T. (1995). Children's
sensitivity to expression of emotion in drawings. Visual Arts Research,
1-14.
18
!"#$%&'(&!"##$%&'()'*$+%&(,-.$'/(00'#1$,"%1#12+,'3,1+,'4'$2/'567'
SET
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
'
'
!
Figure 1
Doll
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Height
2.9cm
5cm
6.6cm
8.8cm
10.5cm
12.8cm
15.7cm
3cm
4.8cm
6.7cm
8.5cm
10.9cm
13cm
16.8cm
Widest
Circumference
5.1cm
7.7cm
10.9cm
14cm
18.1cm
21.2cm
26.7cm
5cm
7.8cm
10.7cm
14cm
17.7cm
21.5cm
26.2cm
Circumference
Base
4.08cm
5.96cm
7.85cm
10.36cm
12.88cm
16.65cm
23.56cm
4.71cm
5.6cm
7.53cm
10.68cm
12.56cm
16.02cm
24.81cm
Diameter
1.3cm
1.9cm
2.5cm
3.3cm
4.1cm
5.3cm
7.5cm
1.5cm
1.8cm
2.4cm
3.4cm
4cm
5.1cm
7.9cm
!"#$%&'(&!"#$%#$&%'(#$&#)&%&"*+#(+,$'%-,)%"#./%,-%(/"%-,0)%1"#'0)"'%2/"+3/(4%
.+).01-")"$."4%&+'(#$."%#$&%*+'0#5%#$35" 7%
8/#)3"%
>,'+(+*"%
I"3#(+*"%
I"0()#5%%
%
!
Figure 2
%
!%
2?: %
!%
2?: %
!%
2?: %
9"+3/(%
2.1 %
∃#7∃)%%
2(7∃∋ %
,7#+%%
2(7#∃ %
,7∃%%
2&7(& %
8+).01-")"$."%
2.1 %
∃∋7)(%%
2∗7(∋ %
∃%7+#%%
2∗7(∃ %
∃%7((%
2∋7+& %
:+'(#$."%
2.1 %
∃%7,&%%
2(7∋# %
∃(7∋∋%%
2∋7)& %
∃(7%(%%
2∋7∋) %
;+'0#5%<$35"%%
2= %
%7∋(%%
2∃7)∋ %
%7∋+%%
2∃7∗# %
%7∋∋%%
2∃7%∃ %
Figure 3