5 Common myths
The next step in our journey is an important one: dispelling some common myths. As in many other knowledge areas, in children's drawing analysis we must also filter out information that is not founded on research studies, but only on intuitive conjectures. It is essential to be aware of myths related to children's drawings, such as those described below, because these are liable to cause undue concern and in extreme cases give the wrong impression about the child.
Before enumerating some of these myths, it is important to note several basic assumptions. As you have seen above, interpreting children's drawings, and understanding their inner world in general, cannot rely on a single indicator or phenomenon. This means that when we analyze a child's drawings to get a glimpse of his world, several conditions must be met:
First, we must analyze dozens of drawings made over a period of at least six months, and in different contexts. The reason for that is that only over such a time period can we detect clear, long-term behavioral trends rather than isolated behaviors.
Second, to reiterate, one indicator is never enough to suggest a broad pattern. To arrive at valid conclusions we must cross-reference several indicators and follow their consistent appearance in drawings. Only repeated phenomena and cross-referenced indicators can reliably support conclusions regarding the child's skills and performance.
Finally, we must talk to the parents. This talk should follow the interpretation and conclusion stages, and is critical because the parents are the most important partners in the process. My experience has shown that processes in which the parents are true partners lead to optimal and quicker results, and also allow all family members to share in the feeling of satisfaction and success.
The drawings presented below have been analyzed in line with these recommendations, that is, they are part of much larger collections of drawings examined over a long period of time to provide conclusions based on cross referenced Data From several sources.
Myth #1
When a child uses black he has a problem or is depressed
FALSE. The use of colors in children's drawings indicates only to some extent their mental state or mood. Sometimes children use black only because it is available. Many children like black because it creates a strong contrast with the white page. Children's drawings from Ghetto Theresienstadt show a clear preference of bright colors, despite their terrible living conditions and the horrors they were forced to witness. I will discuss more valid indicators of fear and distress in detail below.
Myth #2
Scribbles cannot be interpreted – they mean absolutely nothing
FALSE. As you have already noticed from the discussion above and quick comparisons between scribbles made by children from the same kindergarten, you can clearly see differences in the intensity of pressure applied by different children, or the shapes of scribbles, with some children preferring spiral, round lines, while other prefer straight lines and angles. Moreover, some kids refuse to use a certain color, while others tend to occupy the entire page, as opposed to those focusing on a smaller area.
The differences between scribbles are many and diverse, indicating differences in children's character and temperament. To interpret a scribble, you must examine a large number of scribbles made over a period of at least four months after the child has started drawing.
After this period, the drawings may be expected to indicate the child's character and suggest information about how he experiences his inner and outer world.
Myth #3
If the child doesn't like to draw, he probably has a motor problem
PARTLY TRUE. Fine motor skills are clearly a prerequisite for drawing, but not all children who refuse to draw suffer from a motor problem. Many of them dislike drawing because they clearly prefer gross motor activities – they will draw, write and also do homework in the future, but will tend to do so quickly and move on. Another reason for stopping to draw may have to do with an intervention experience that has obstructed the natural process of drawing development. For example, when the child is still in the scribbling stage, one family member starts teaching him how to draw forms and figures – this kind of l earning actually requires a developmental "leap" to a more advance stage, and such an intervention could cause the child to give up on drawing altogether. Other causes can be too many admonitions that have to do with orderliness and cleanliness, that spoil the creative atmosphere, inappropriate artistic criticism by adults and other children (particularly older brothers). Finally, there are simply cases where children simply do not like to draw, and that is perfectly alright.
Myth #4
Birds in the sky and bars on the windows indicate distress
FALSE. Identifying indicators of distress in drawings is a complex issue with grave consequences. As such, practitioners must be extremely careful not to jump to any conclusions based on a single phenomenon. Studies found the birds and bars in children's drawings to be non-significant correlates of abuse or distress. Moreover, participants not included in the study's "at-risk" group (children with a history of mental, physical or sexual abuse and emotional neglect) actually tended to draw bars on windows quite frequently.
Myth #5
The drawing's subject indicates the child's inner feelings
FALSE. The subject of the drawing does not necessarily indicate the child's inner feelings. Monsters, for example, do not necessarily suggest fear or distress, indicators for which may be found also in drawings of flowers and butterflies. At first glance, this drawing by a 13 year-old includes quite explicit contents, but the quality of the line used suggests a healthy, strong personality. This drawing is actually quite typical of adolescents who often produce defiant and provocative drawings. In this example, although one should not ignore the pools of blood, they do not necessarily suggest distress.
To conclude, new myths such as these are bound to crop up from time to time, but we must always bear in mind that as a rule, a single indicator in a drawing must never be relied upon to inform conclusions regarding children's behavior patterns. I believe that the more parents and educators are aware of the approach outlined here, such myths will be abandoned for a more complex and nuanced understanding of the children under their care, and maybe also of the children within us adults.