testedsafebase

RESEARCHARTICLEOpenAccessSizeandemotionordepthandemotionEvidence,usingMatryoshka(Russian)dolls,ofchildrenusingphysicaldepthasaproxyforemotionalchargeAndrewKDunn*,NicolaTaylorandThomBaguleyAbstractBackground:Thesizeandemotioneffectisthetendencyforchildrentodrawpeopleandotherobjectswithapositiveemotionalchargelargerthanthosewithanegativeorneutralcharge.
Hereweexploredthenovelideathatdrawingsizemightbeactingasaproxyfordepth(proximity).
Methods:Forty-twochildren(aged3-11years)chose,from2setsofMatryoshka(Russian)dolls,adolltorepresentapersonwithpositive,negativeorneutralcharge,whichtheyplacedinfrontofthemselvesonasheetofA3paper.
Results:Wefoundthatthechildrenusedproximityanddollsize,toindicateemotionalcharge.
Conclusions:Thesefindingsareconsistentwiththenotionthatindrawings,childrenareusingsizeasaproxyforphysicalcloseness(proximity),astheyattemptwithvaryingsuccesstoputpositivechargeditemscloserto,ornegativeandneutralchargeitemsfurtherawayfrom,themselves.
Keywords:Sizeandemotioneffect,Children'sdrawings,Proximity,Depth,Attachment,RepresentationBackgroundChildrenunderstandemotionsindrawingsfromanearlyage(≈4years).
Theybeginrepresentingemotionsintheformofsimplelines(smilesorfrownsonfaces)fromabout5yearsonwards,askillthatbecomesincreasinglymorecomplex(Cox2005,p.
148;Ives1984;Morraetal.
1994;Winstonetal.
1995).
Youngchildrenalsouseobjectsizetorepresentemotionintheirdrawings(Cox2005,p.
145).
Thetendencytouseobjectsizeasanindicatorofemotionalcharge(positiveornegativefeelings)towardspeopleandotherobjectsiscalledthesizeandemotionef-fect(Cox2005,p.
145).
Typically,children(≈4-11years)drawpositivecharged(niceorpleasantorliked)objects(e.
g.
people,apples,dogs)biggerthannegativecharged(nastyorunpleasantordisliked)andneutralcharged(e.
g.
trees,tables,cars)objects(Burkittetal.
2003;Thomasetal.
1989).
Negativechargedobjectsareusuallydrawnthesamesizeasneutralchargeobjects,althoughtheyaresometimesdrawnassmallerthanneutralones(Burkittetal.
2003,2004).
Theeffectissensitivetofactorsbothmethodological(e.
g.
availablespacewhendrawingmul-tipleobjectsonthesamepage,ratherthanseparatepages,affectsobjectplacementandrelativeobjectsize)andde-velopmental(suchaschangesintheabilitytoplan,associ-atedwithtypicaldevelopmentinthefrontallobesandformaleducation).
Accordingly,ithasbeenshownthatsuchfactorscanleadtoareversaloftheeffect(i.
e.
nega-tivefigure>positivefigure;Cotterill&Thomas1990;Jolley1995),lossoftheeffect(e.
g.
afocusonrealismoverexpression,inolderchildren–Cox2005,p.
145)orelsein-consistencyinindividualperformanceovertime(Cox2005,p.
147;Jolley1995;Strangeetal.
2010).
Furthermore,noeffecthasbeenfoundwhereverystrongnegativeorpositivefeelingsmightbeexpectedtobeexpressedindrawingssuchasinpatientswithdepression(Joineretal.
1996)orinchildrenwhohaveexperiencedmilitarycon-flict(Jolley&Vulic-Prtoric2001).
Thereisaveryclearhistoryofinappropriateinterpre-tationintheuseofchildren'sdrawingsasadiagnostictool(Cox2005,p.
261).
Indeeditisnotclearthatdrawingsare*Correspondence:andrew.
dunn@ntu.
ac.
ukNottinghamTrentUniversity,BurtonStreet,NottinghamNG14BU,UK2013Dunnetal.
;licenseeBioMedCentralLtd.
ThisisanopenaccessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicense(http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/2.
0),whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited.
Dunnetal.
BMCPsychology2013,1:21http://www.
biomedcentral.
com/2050-7283/1/21thebestwaytoexploreextremeemotionalstress(Joiner&Schmidt1997)andevidencefortheiruseasaclinicaldiagnostictooldoesnotappeartoexist(Flanagan&Motta2007).
Thustheabsenceofasizeandemotioneffectforextremeemotionshouldnotbetakenasevidencethatthechildrenarenottryingtoexpressemotionalchargeindrawings.
Moreover,inconsistenciesinthepresenceorab-senceofthesizeandemotioneffectaretypicallyassoci-atedwithmethodologicalfactors(suchasavailabledrawingspace).
Ithasalsobeenpointedoutthatsomeanalysesmaybeunderpowered,therebymissingtheef-fect.
Forexample,althoughJolley(1995)employedare-peatedmeasuresdesigninhiswork,heusedafairlysmallsamplesize(seeBurkittetal.
2003).
Inaddition,sincechil-drenareoftennotbeingaskedtodirectlymanipulatesizeinthedrawingtasksthenitislikelythattheobservedef-fectswillneverbeverylarge(theyareineffectashadowcastbythetask).
Thustheevidencefromourownlab(Rajput,M:Internalrepresentationofaffectivepreferencesforliked,dislikedandneutralhumanfiguresdrawings:rep-resentationassizeordistanceasafunctionofemotionalpreference.
Unpublished.
)andelsewhere(e.
g.
Cleeve&Bradbury1992;Craddick1963;Fox&Thomas1990;IvesIves1984;Sechrest&Wallace1964),demonstratesthatwhereattentionispaidtomethodology,typicallydevelop-ingchildrendotendtomodulateobjectdrawingsizewithemotionalcharge(seeCox2005,p.
145-148;Burkittetal.
2003,2004;Thomasetal.
1989).
Whilstitisgenerallyassumedthatdrawingsizeactsasaproxyforemotionalcontent-wherebiggerequalsmorepositive-itisnotclearwhychildrenmightdothis(Cox2005,p.
147).
Jolley(1995)proposedanappetitive-defencemechanism,suchthatsizemightberelatedtoachild'sidentificationwiththeobject.
Thatistosaychildrenin-creaseobjectdrawingsizetoidentifymorecloselywithpositivechargeobjectsanddecreaseobjectdrawingsizetoreducethethreatfromnegativechargeobjects.
Whilstplausible,Jolley'saccountisproblematicinthatitdoesnoteasilyexplaintheinconsistenciesintheliterature(suchaswhytheeffectmightsometimesbereversed).
Nordoesitproperlyaddresswhythechildrenwouldusesizetoiden-tifywith,orreducethreatfrom,theemotionallychargedobjectsinthefirstplace.
Itremainsamootpointastowhychildrentypicallymodulatedrawingsizeforemotion.
However,achangeindrawingsizemightreflectadesiretoshowpreference(emotionalcharge)byplacingtheobjectsindepth.
Spe-cifically,differencesinrelativeobject(drawing)sizemightbeanattempttorepresentassociatedretinalsizeatdifferentdistances(perceiveddepth)orphysicalclose-ness(proximity),thoughtheseneednotbemutuallyex-clusive.
Furthermorethisideaisnotinconsistentwithanotionofsizeasanindexofclosenessorthreatreduc-tion(c.
f.
Jolley1995):childrenmaybetryingtoidentifybybringingclose(therebyincreasingvisualsize)thepositivechargedobject,orreducethreatbymovingaway(therebyreducingvisualsize)thenegativechargeitem.
Representingdepthindrawingscanbedifficult,evenforadultswhohavereceivedsometraining(Cox2005,p.
116).
Certainlyyoungchildrenareawareofandcanrepresentdepthin2-dimensional(2D)drawings(Cox2005,p.
118).
Thusat3-4yearschildrenseemtounderstandthatobjectsizeisreducedindistantobjects(Pillow&Flavell1986)andcanusesizejudgementstodetermineobjectdepthinpre-drawnpictures,thoughnotnecessarilyintheirowndrawings(Perara&Cox2000).
By5yearschildrencanalsouseobjectheight(positiononthepage)toindicatedistance:distantobjectsareplacedfurtherupthepagethannearerobjects(Freemanetal.
1977).
Theyalsopo-sitionmultipleobjectsaboveorbeloweachothertocon-veydepth(Cox&Perara2001).
However,childrendonotspontaneouslydrawobjectsindepthuntiltheyarearound7years(Cox1986)anditisnotuntil8-9yearsthatchildrencombinesizeandheight(Cox&Perara2001),usedivergingandconverginglines(Cox&Littlejohn1995),orusefore-shortening(Nicholls1995)withanysuccessorconsistencyintheirdrawings,unlessbeingpromptedtodoso.
Weproposethatthatthesizeandemotioneffectmightbeanattempttorepresentphysicaldistancebe-tweenthechildandtheobjectinrelationtoits(theob-ject's)emotionalcharge(near=big=positivecharge;furtheraway=small=negativecharge).
Giventhatrepresentingdepthindrawingscanbedifficult,wefurthersuggestthatinconsistenciesorreversalsoftheeffectmightreflectthedif-ficultieschildrenexperiencewithproducingdepthorpro-ximitycuesintheirdrawings.
Herewetestedournovelidea,in3-dimensionalspace,byusingataskthatwasanalogoustothesizeandemotiondrawingprocedure.
Inourtaskweaskedchildrentoselectadolltorepresentapersonwithpositivecharge,adolltorepresentapersonwithnegativecharge,andadolltorepresentapersonwithneutralcharge,whichaftereachselectiontheythenhadtoplaceonasheetofA3paperinfrontofthem.
Thedollsweusedwere2(7piece)setsofMatryoshka(Russian)dollsthatwerehighlysimilarindesignandsizeacrosspairs.
Wereasonedthatbyusingsimplehumanfiguresthatmaintainedasimilarrepre-sentationbutthatvariedinsizewewouldreducesomeofthetaskdifficultiesassociatedwithdepthrepresentation(indrawings)whilstallowingforsimultaneouschangesinsize(heightorcircumference)anddistance.
Wehypothesizedthatifthechildrenareusingactualsizetoindicateemotionalchargethentheyshouldconsis-tentlychosebigger(tallerand/orbiggerbasecircumfe-rence)dollstorepresentpositivecharge,relativetodollschosentorepresentnegativeorneutralcharge.
Ifthechildrenareusingphysicaldistance(proximity)torep-resentcharge,thentheyshouldplacepositivechargeddollsclosertothemselvesthannegativeorneutralchar-Dunnetal.
BMCPsychology2013,1:21Page2of7http://www.
biomedcentral.
com/2050-7283/1/21geddolls,irrespectiveofdollsize(heightorbasecircumference).
MethodsParticipantsanddesignForty-twochildren(22boys&20girls;medianage=5years6months;range3-11years),from2locations(anurseryschoolclassandanumberofclassesinaprimaryschool,bothbasedinDerbyshire),tookpartinthisexperiment.
Thiswasanopportunisticsample,availableatthetimeoftesting,towardsthelatterhalfoftheschoolyear.
FollowingclearancebytheSocialScienceethicsboard(NottinghamTrentUniversity–referenceNTaylor18.
01.
11)permissionwasthensoughtfromtheschools.
Onceobtained,wewrotetotheparentsaskingfortheirpermissioninwhichweexplainedthetaskandaskedthemtoreturnanopt-formiftheydidnotwanttheirchildtotakepart.
Testingtookplaceapproximately1weeklater.
Attestnochildwasmadetotakepartiftheydidnotwantto,orwithoutappropriateconsent.
Sincethiswasanopportunitysamplewedidnotformallycontrolforage.
However,wedidinformallyexploreindivi-dualage-grouprelatedperformanceacrossthe(wide)agerangeofthesample.
Wedidthisbyplottingtrend-linesacrossage-groupdatagraphsforeachoftheresponsemea-sures.
Formalanalysisofthemeanchargeselectiondata,foreachmeasure,wascarriedoutusingone-waybetweensubjectsANOVA.
Bydefinitionageandotherindividualdifferencesareincorporatedintothesubjectsterm(Baguley2012a,p.
625-627).
Thusincludingageasacovariateinthisanalysishasnoadditionalinfluenceonthesubsequentout-put(Fratiosareunaffected).
BothformalandinformalobservationsarereportedintheResultssection.
ApparatusOurdecisiontouseMatryoshkadollsforthistaskwaslargelypractical.
Firsttheyareanengaging,3Dformthatvariesinsizewhilstmaintainarelativelyconsistentsimplehumanrepresentation.
Secondwewantedmorethanonesetofdollsthatwerehighlysimilar(indesignandsizeacrosspairs)sothatthechildrencouldchosethesamesizedollstorepresentdifferentemotionalcharge.
Wealsowantedtohavearangeofsizesbutdidnotwanttooverloadthechildwithtoomanyoptions.
Wethereforechosetouse2setsof7piecedollsbecausewefelttheyrepresentedthebestcom-promiseforthesecriteriawhilstallowingforthechildrentochooseasimilarlookingdollofthesamesizefordifferentcharges.
Detailsofthedollsandanimageofonesetarepro-videdinTable1andFigure1,respectively.
Notethatthelevelofpainteddetaildiminisheswithsize.
ProcedureThechildrenweretestedindividually(byauthorNT)onsite,inaquietareaawayfromanyotherchildren.
Eachchildwasseatedatatablesuchthatthetablewasaboutlevelwiththemiddleoftheirstomachandthattheycouldseeandreachfreelyacrossthespacearoundthem.
Beforetestingeachchildwasabletolookatthedollsandtohandlethemiftheywished.
Havingbeenseated,itwasexplainedtoeachchildthatinthistasktheyweregoingtobeaskedtolookcarefullyatthedollsandthenchoose(oneatatime)3dollstorepresentsomeonetheyliked(positivecharge),someonetheydidnotlike(negativecharge)andsomeonethatwasjustaperson,thattheyneitherlikednordisliked(neutralcharge).
Thedollswerethenplacedoneatatimeinheightorder(heightorderdirectionrandomisedforeachchild)infrontofthem,alongthebackedgeofasheetofA3paper.
Nextthechildrenweretoldthateachtimetheychoseadoll,theyshouldplaceitonthepieceFigure1SamplesetofMatroyoshka(Russian)dolls.
Table1SummaryofMatryoshkadollmeasurements(sets1and2)SETDollHeightWidestcircumferenceCircumferencebaseDiameter112.
90cm5.
10cm4.
08cm1.
30cm125.
00cm7.
70cm5.
96cm1.
90cm136.
60cm10.
90cm7.
85cm2.
50cm148.
80cm14.
00cm10.
36cm3.
30cm1510.
50cm18.
10cm12.
88cm4.
10cm1612.
80cm21.
20cm16.
65cm5.
30cm1715.
70cm26.
70cm23.
56cm7.
50cm213.
0cm5.
00cm4.
71cm1.
50cm224.
80cm7.
80cm5.
60cm1.
80cm236.
70cm10.
70cm7.
53cm2.
40cm248.
50cm14.
00cm10.
68cm3.
40cm2510.
90cm17.
70cm12.
56cm4.
00cm2613.
00cm21.
50cm16.
02cm5.
10cm2716.
80cm26.
20cm24.
81cm7.
90cmDunnetal.
BMCPsychology2013,1:21Page3of7http://www.
biomedcentral.
com/2050-7283/1/21ofpaperinfrontofthem,andthattheycouldchooseanyavailabledollandplaceitanywhereonthepaper.
Beforebeginningthetask,theexperimentermadesurethatthechildrenunderstoodwhattheywerebeingaskedtodoandthattheystillwantedtotakepart.
Allchildrenagreedtotakepartinthetask.
Attest,eachchildwasgivenascriptedsetofselectioninstructions,withtheorderofdollchargeselectionbe-ingrandomisedsoastoavoidchargeorderbias.
Thein-structionswereasfollows:Positivechargedoll:"Pleasecanyouthinkofapersonyoulike,onceyouhavethoughtofsomebodycanyouchooseoneofthosedollsinfrontofyouthatcouldbethepersonthatyoulikeOnceyouhavechosenthedollcouldyoupleaseplaceitanywhereonthepieceofpaperinfrontofyou"Negativechargedoll:"Pleasecanyouthinkofapersonyoudonotlike,onceyouhavethoughtofsomebodycanyouchooseoneofthosedollsinfrontofyouthatcouldbethatpersonthatyoudonotlikeOnceyouhavechosenthedollcouldyoupleaseplaceitanywhereonthepieceofpaperinfrontofyou'Neutralchargedoll:"Pleasecanyouthinkofaneutralperson,justaperson,itcanbeanyoneatall.
OnceyouhavethoughtofsomebodycanyouchooseoneofthosedollsinfrontofyoutobethatpersonOnceyouhavechosenthedollcouldyoupleaseplaceitanywhereonthepieceofpaperinfrontofyou"Weusedstandardisedinstructionssoastomaintainconsistencyinwhatwasbeingasked,however,wewereawarethatsomechildrenmightnotfullyunderstandwhatwasmeantbylike,dislike,orneutral.
Forthisrea-sonwetookgreatpainsbothbeforeandduringtesttoensurethatthatthechildrenwereasclearastheycouldbeaboutthetermsbeingused.
Forexample,whereachilddidnotunderstandtheinstructions,theywerereassured,theinstructionswerethenrepeatedandthechildwasencouragedtomakeaselectiontomatchthecondition.
Inpracticeallofthechildren,eventheveryyoungones,appearedtounderstandwhatwasbeingaskedofthemandwhatthetermsbeingusedmeant;theyrequiredverylittlepromptingoradditionalexpla-nationorsupportduringtest.
Followingtheplacementofthedolls(eachselecteddollremainedinpositionuntilthetaskwascompleted),threemeasureswereobtained:(1)Dollheight–basetotop(cm),(2)Dollbasecircumference(cm)and(3)Physicaldistancefromdolltochild(cm)-acirclewasdrawnaroundeachdollandthedistancefromthecentrepointtothemiddleofthechild'sseatedpositionwasmeasured.
ResultsThedatasetindicatedthatthereisatendencyforposi-tivechargeddollstobeslightlybigger(tallerandbroader)andbeplacedclosertothechildthanneutralornegativechargeddolls(seeTable2).
However,theredoesnotappeartobeanyevidenceofagerelatedeffectsacrossthesampleinanyofthetasks.
Individualper-formanceisvariablebutthegeneraltrend(asindicatedbythetrendline)acrosstheage-groupsisrelativelyflatinallcases(seeFigure2).
Toexplorethesedataformallyweran3one-wayre-peatedmeasuresANOVAs(height;circumference;dis-tance),eachwith3levels(positivecharge,negativecharge,neutralcharge).
Theanalysesforheight(F(2,82)=0.
68;MSE=23.
65;P=0.
51;η2G=0.
04)andcircumference(F(2,82)=1.
11;MSE=50.
03;P=0.
34;η2G=0.
07)werenotsignificant.
Howevertheanalysisfordistancewassignifi-cant(F(2,82)=5.
26;MSE=15.
54;P=0.
01;η2G=0.
086).
ThepatternsofresultsarepresentedinFigure3withCousineau-Moreystyledifference-adjustedconfidencein-tervals(Baguley2012b).
Theseareadjustedsothatmeanswithnon-overlappingerrorbarsaredifferentwithap-proximately95%confidence.
AscanbeseeninFigure3(c)thereisasignificantdifferencebetweenthepositivechargeddollsandboththenegativeandneutralchargeddolls(P0.
05).
DiscussionInconsideringtheliteratureonthesizeandemotionef-fectinchildren'sdrawingsweweremotivatedtoproposethatsizemightbeactingasaproxyfordepth(orclose-ness)inchildren'sdrawingsandthatsomeoftheincon-sistenciesinthefindingsmighthaveoccurredbecausethechildrenarestrugglingtorepresent3-demensionsina2-dimentionaldrawingtask.
WeoperationalizedthisideabycreatingananalogueofthedrawingtaskusingRussiandolls.
Thisanalogoustaskallowedthechildrentomodulateheight,widthanddistance,whilstlimitingsomeofthemethodologicaldifficultiesusuallyassoci-atedwiththedrawingtask(seeaboveandCox2005,p.
146-147).
Table2Meanandstandarddeviationsforeachofthethreemeasures(height,circumferenceanddistance)ChargeHeight(cm)Circumference(cm)Distance(cm)PositiveM(SD)10.
1614.
6512.
93(5.
14)(7.
54)(5.
40)NegativeM(SD)9.
0812.
8015.
44(5.
01)(7.
51)(4.
63)NeutralM(SD)9.
112.
5515.
25(3.
53)(4.
83)(4.
46)Dunnetal.
BMCPsychology2013,1:21Page4of7http://www.
biomedcentral.
com/2050-7283/1/21Theresultsofourexperimentindicatedthatthechil-drenwerenotconsistentlyselectingtallerorwiderbaseddollstorepresentcharge.
Insteadtheyweremanipulatingdepthtorepresentcharge,byplacingthepositivechargeddollsphysicallyclosertothemselvesthanthenegativeorneutralchargeddolls.
Thesefindingsareconsistentwithourdistance(proximity)proposalandthenotionthatsizemightbeactingasaproxyforphysicalclosenessin2-dimentionalfiguredrawings.
Webelievethatourfindingsofferfurtherinsightintounderstandingthesizeandemo-tioneffect.
Towhitwesuggestthat,havingtakenintoac-counttheproblemofrepresentingdepthindrawings,thesizeandemotioneffectinchildren'sdrawingsmightbeseenasaproximityandemotioneffect,inwhichchildrenuseobjectsize(withvarioussuccess)asaproxyforphys-icaldepth(proximity).
Werecognisethatourapproachisnotwithoutissue.
Forexample,itispossiblethatourtaskisnotsuitablysensitivetounderlyingdevelopmentaldifferencesacrossthe(wide)agerangeofoursample(e.
g.
DeLoache2000;Karmiloff-Smith1995,p.
10).
Certainlythereisagere-latedvariationinmanytypesofcognitivedevelopment,howevertherecanbedifferencesinbehaviouralexpres-sion(whereaU-shapedpatternisoftenobserved)andunderlyingrepresentationalchange(wherethepatternmightbepositivelylinear)-seeKarmiloff-Smith,(1995,p.
19).
Thusitcanbeseeninthedrawingliteraturethatachild'sabilitytounderstandandrepresentemotionbe-comesmoresophisticatedandexpressivewithincreasedage.
Accordingly,whilsttheirabilitytoexpressemotionintheirdrawingsfirstincreases,thereisoftenaU-shapeddip(oraplateau)inemotionalexpressionthatcoincideswithschoolingandadrivetowardsexpressingrealism,ataround5-9years.
Thisisthenfollowedbyasteadyincreaseinemotionalexpressionuptoabout14years(SeeCox2005,p.
148-151).
Wealsorecognisethatevenifthedolltaskreducedsomeaspectsofcognitivedemandinrelationtodepth(a)Height(b)Circumference(c)DistanceN=42(3yrs=10;4yrs=6;5yrs=4;6yrs=7;7yrs=5;8yrs=5;9yrs=2;10yrs=1;11yrs=2)Figure2Age-groupperformanceforeachmeasure(a.
Height,b.
Circumference,c.
Distance)ofcharge(positive,neutral,negative)withaccompanyingtrend-lineandconfidenceboundary.
Figure3Patternoftaskperformancefor(a)height,(b)circumferenceand(c)distance,presentedwithCousineau-Moreystyledifference-adjustedconfidenceintervals(Baguley2012b),adjustedsothatmeanswithnon-overlappingerrorbarsaredifferentwithapproximately95%confidence.
Dunnetal.
BMCPsychology2013,1:21Page5of7http://www.
biomedcentral.
com/2050-7283/1/21representation,thetaskmightstillbedemandingintermsofdualrepresentation.
Thatistosayitmayhavebeenparticularlydifficultfortheyoungerchildrentoholdadualrepresentationofthedoll,asadoll,andasasymbolicrepresentationofthepersontheyassociatedwiththeemotionalcharge(e.
g.
DeLoache2000).
Like-wise,somechildren(especiallytheyoungerones)maynothavefullyunderstoodthetaskinstructions,particu-larlyfortheneutralchargefigures.
Certainly,someofthechildreninthistaskwereveryyoung(3-4years)andotherstudies(e.
g.
Burkitt,etal.
2003)haveusedmoreuser-friendlyterminology.
However,wedidnotseeanyobviousdevelopmentalpatternsinthespreadofindividualresponsesacrosstheagerangeofoursample.
MoreoverdifferencesinagewouldhavebeenincorporatedinthesubjectstermoftheANOVAthusrenderingunnecessaryfurtheranalysisofageasacovariateoradditionalfactor.
Further,whilstveryyoungchildrendohavedifficultywithdualrepre-sentation,by2yearsmanychildrenwillreadilyengageinsymbolicpretenceintheirgames(e.
g.
usingawoodenblockasaphone)andby3-4yearsofagemostchildrenfinddualrepresentationrelativelyunproblematic,al-thoughthismayvaryfromchildtochild(DeLoache2000).
Concomitantly,attestingtheredidnotappeartobeanydifficultieswiththetaskinstructions.
However,evenifsomechildrendidnotfullyunderstandwhatwasmeantby,forexample'…aneutralperson.
',theresultsshowthatpositivechargeddollswerepositionedphysic-allycloserthannegativechargeddolls:differentiatingbe-tweenthepositiveandnegativechargesisconsistentwiththepertinentliteratureevenifthevariablebeingmanipulated(c.
f.
distanceratherthansize)isnot.
Inshort,weareconfidentthatagedidnotimpactontaskperformance.
Oneadvantageofourapproachisthatwelimitedmethodologicalissuesrelatedtocrowdingandplanningwhilstmaintainingthecorematterofexploringtherep-resentationofemotionalchargeinobjects.
Forexample,wemanagedtolimitproblemsofspaceandcrowdingtypicallyassociatedwithmultipleobjectrepresentationindrawings(seeabove):unlikeinadrawingwheretheobjectscanfreelyvary,potentiallyinfluencingtheamountofavailablespaceandthesizeofthenextobjectdrawn,dollsize(heightandwidth)variationisfixedateachdollinterval.
Indeedifthechildrenwereusingsizetorepresentcharge(astheyappeartodoindrawings)thenspacewasnotlikelytobeaproblembecausetherewasmorethanenoughspacetoplace3largedollsonthepaper.
Notwithstanding,availablespacemighthavebeenanissueinrelationtohowfarawaythechildrencouldplacethedolls.
Notethatavailablespace(inthisregard)isalsoimpactedonbyhowfarthechildcouldreachandtheperimeterofthetable.
Fortunatelytherewasplentyofspacebeyondtheedgesofthepapertotheperimeterofthetableandchildrencouldhave,butdidnotinpractice,placethedollsoutsideofthepaperarea.
Alsothedollswerenotnecessarilyplaceddirectlyinfrontofthechild,butinsteadcouldappeareithersideofthechild'smid-line.
Thusgiventheresultsobservedhere,space(andlikelyassociatedplanning)doesnotseemtobeanissue.
Onefinalpointofconcern(raisedbyoneofourre-viewers)relatestotheappearanceofourdollstimuli.
Al-thoughweareconfidentthatourcompromiseonthenumberofdolls(2setsof7)allowedsufficientrangeofchoiceinthisexperiment,wedorecognisethatthedollsareostensiblyfemaleindesignandthatthismighthaveimpacteduponperformance.
Forexample,thechildrenmightbeassociatingthefemaledollswithapositivema-ternalrepresentationirrespectiveofthetaskinstructions.
Certainlythisispossible.
Howeversuchanassociationmightalsostrengthenedthesalienceofthepositivechargedollstherebydistinguishingthemfromtheotheremotionalcharges.
Thismightevenmakeiteasiertoholdadualrep-resentationofthedollanditsassociatepersonofpositivecharge.
Howeveritremainsuncertainwhatimpact,ifany,thesexorgenderofthedollmighthavehad.
Moreover,whilstthismaybeaninterestingavenueoffurtherresearch,itdoesnotreadilyexplainwhythechildrenareplacingthepositivechargeddollsphysicallyclosertothemselvesratherthanselectingabigger(widerortaller)dollinstead.
Finally,withoutfurtherresearchitremainsunclearastowhychildrenwouldwanttoconveyemotionalchargebymanipulatingsizeorproximity.
However,itisconceivablethatthedistancingeffectsobservedheremightreflectin-nateaspectsofattachment,ortheprocessesofattachment,namelysafe-baseproximitybehaviour(e.
g.
Ainsworth1973,p.
45;Bowlby1969,p.
40).
Safe-basebehavioursareinnate,occurveryearlyonandpersistthroughoutthelife-span.
Thismighthelptoexplainwhythechildrenusedepthtorepresentpositive,negativeorneutralchargeob-jects.
Itmayalsoexplainwhythereisnoobviousagere-lateddifferencesinthesedata.
However,distancingeffectsmightvarywithattachmenttype,attachmentstageandpossiblyeventemperament.
Similarly,theremightalsobecross-culturaldifferencesinthesizeorpresenceoftheef-fectasafunctionofthecultureinwhichthechildisbeingraised.
Forexample,theremightbedifferencesinthemag-nitude(orpresence)oftheeffectinsocialsituationswhencomparingbetweenculturesthatfavourcloseproximity,increasedemotionorphysicalcontact,andculturesthatthatdonot.
Quitewhatthosedifferencesmightbeisatpresentunclear.
ConclusionsIthasbeenshownherethatwhenaskedtoselectdollstakenfromtwosetsofhighlysimilarMatryoshkadolls,Dunnetal.
BMCPsychology2013,1:21Page6of7http://www.
biomedcentral.
com/2050-7283/1/21torepresentapersonwithpositive,negativeorneutralcharge,childrenagedbetween3-11years,placetheposi-tivechargeddollsphysicallyclosertothemthanthenegativeorneutralchargeddolls.
Thisfindingisconsist-entwiththehypothesiseddistance(proximity)proposal,supportingthenotionthatsizemightbeactingasaproxyforphysicalclosenessinfiguredrawings.
CompetinginterestsTheauthorsdeclaredthattheyhavenocompetinginterests.
Authors'contributionsAKDconceivedanddesignedtheexperiment,carriedouttheanalysisandinterpretationofdataandwrotemostofthemanuscriptforpublication.
NTwasinvolvedintheinitialdesign,collectedallofthedataandwroteanearlydraftofthemethodssection,TBcarriedoutsomeadditionaldataanalysis,contributedtotheinterpretationofdataandlaterdraftsofthemanuscript.
Allauthorsreadandapprovedthefinalmanuscript.
Authors'informationNicolaTaylor:IndependentResearcher.
AcknowledgementsTheauthorswouldliketothanktheschools,parentsandchildreninvolvedinthisresearch.
Theywouldalsoliketothankallofthereviewersandtheeditorfortheirhelpfulandincisivecommentsonthismanuscript.
Received:22April2013Accepted:18September2013Published:29October2013ReferencesAinsworth,MDS.
(1973).
Thedevelopmentofinfant-motherattachment.
InBMCaldwell&HNRicciuti(Eds.
),ReviewofChildDevelopmentResearch(Vol.
3,pp.
1–94).
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Baguley,T.
(2012a).
Seriousstats:Aguidetoadvancedstatisticsforthebehavioralsciences.
Basingstoke:Palgrave.
Baguley,T.
(2012b).
Calculatingandgraphingwithin-subjectconfidenceintervalsforANOVA.
BehaviorResearchMethods,44,158–175.
Bowlby,J.
(1969).
SeparationandLoss.
Volume1:Attachment.
NewYork:BasicBooks.
Burkitt,E,Barrett,M,&Davis,A.
(2003).
Theeffectofaffectivecharacterizationsonthesizeofchildren'sdrawings.
BritishJournalofDevelopmentalPsychology,21,565–584.
Burkitt,E,Barrett,M,&Davis,A.
(2004).
Theeffectofaffectivecharacterizationsontheuseofsizeandcolourindrawingsproducedbychildrenintheabsenceofamodel.
EducationalPsychology,24,315–343.
Cleeve,H,&Bradbury,RJ.
(1992).
Children'sproductionsandjudgmentsofdrawingsofpeopleofdifferentimportance.
Seville:Posterpresentedatthe5thEuropeanConferenceofDevelopmentalPsychology.
Cotterill,A,&Thomas,GV.
(1990).
Children'sproductionandperceptionofdrawingsofemotionallysignificanttopics.
PosterpresentedattheforthEuropeanConferenceonDevelopmentalPsychology.
Stirling,UK:UniversityofStirling.
Cox,MV.
(1986).
Cubesaredifficultthingstodraw.
BritishJournalofDevelopmentalPsychology,4,341–345.
Cox,M.
(2005).
Thepictorialworldofthechild.
NewYork,NYUS:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Cox,MV,&Littlejohn,K.
(1995).
Children'suseofconvergingobliquesintheirperspectivedrawings.
EducationalPsychology,15,127–139.
Cox,MV,&Perara,J.
(2001).
Children'suseofheightandsizecuestodepictaprojectivedepthrelationshipintheirpictures.
Psychologia,41,171–182.
Craddick,RA.
(1963).
SizeofHallowe'enwitchdrawingspriorto,onandafterHallowe'en.
PerceptualandMotorSkills,16,235–238.
DeLoache,JS.
(2000).
Dualrepresentationandyoungchildren'suseofscalemodels.
ChildDevelopment,71,329–338.
Flanagan,F,&Motta,RW.
(2007).
Figuredrawings:Apopularmethod.
PsychologyintheSchools,44,257–270.
Fox,T,&Thomas,GV.
(1990).
Children'sdrawingsofananxiety-elicitingtopic:Effectonsizeofthedrawing.
BritishJournalofClinicalPsychology,29,71–81.
Freeman,NH,Eiser,C,&Sayers,J.
(1977).
Children'sstrategiesinproducing3-Drelationshipsona2-Dsurface.
JournalofExperimentalChildPsychology,23,305–314.
Ives,W.
(1984).
Thedevelopmentofexpressivityindrawing.
BritishJournalofEducationalPsychology,54,152–159.
Joiner,TE,&Schmidt,KL.
(1997).
Drawingconclusionsornotfromdrawings.
JournalofPersonalityAssessment,69,476–481.
Joiner,TE,Schmidt,KL,&Barnett,J.
(1996).
Size,detail,andlineheavinessinchildren'sdrawingsascorrelatesofemotionaldistress:(more)negativeevidence.
JournalofPersonalityAssessment,67,127–141.
Jolley,RP.
(1995).
Children'sproductionandperceptionofvisualmetaphorsformoodandemotioninlinedrawingsandinart.
Birmingham:Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofBirmingham.
Jolley,RP,&Vulic-Prtoric,A.
(2001).
Croatianchildren'sexperienceofwarisnotreflectedinthesizeandplacementofemotivetopicsintheirdrawings.
BritishJournalofClinicalPsychology,40,107–110.
Karmiloff-Smith,A.
(1995).
BeyondModularity:ADevelopmentalPerspectiveonCognitiveScience.
Cambridge,Massachusetts:MITPress.
Morra,S,Caloni,B,&d'Amigo,MR.
(1994).
Workingmemoryandtheinternationaldepictionofemotions.
ArchivesdePsychologie,62,71–87.
Nicholls,AL.
(1995).
Influenceofvisualprojectiononyoungchildren'sdepictionsofobjectproportions.
JournalofExperimentalChildPsychology,60,304–326.
Perara,J,&Cox,MV.
(2000).
Theeffectofbackgroundcontextonchildrens'understandingofthespatialdeptharrangementofobjectsinadrawing.
Psychologia,43,144–153.
Pillow,BH,&Flavell,JH.
(1986).
Intellectualrealism:theroleofchildren'sinterpretationsofpicturesandperceptualverbs.
ChildDevelopment,56,664–670.
Sechrest,L,&Wallace,J.
(1964).
Figuredrawingsandnaturallyoccurringevents.
JournalofEducationalPsychology,55,42–44.
Strange,D,VanPapendrecht,H,Crawford,E,Candel,I,&Hayne,H.
(2010).
Sizedoesn'tmatter:emotionalcontentdoesnotdeterminethesizeofobjectsinchildren'sdrawings.
Psychology,Crime&Law,16,459–476.
Thomas,G,Chaigne,E,&Fox,T.
(1989).
Children'sDrawingsoftopicsdifferinginsignificance:effectsonsizeofdrawing.
BritishJournalofDevelopmentalPsychology,7,321–331.
Winston,AS,Kenyon,B,Stewardson,J,&Lepine,T.
(1995).
Children'ssensitivitytoexpressionofemotionindrawings.
VisualArtsResearch,21,1–14.
doi:10.
1186/2050-7283-1-21Citethisarticleas:Dunnetal.
:SizeandemotionordepthandemotionEvidence,usingMatryoshka(Russian)dolls,ofchildrenusingphysicaldepthasaproxyforemotionalcharge.
BMCPsychology20131:21.
SubmityournextmanuscripttoBioMedCentralandtakefulladvantageof:ConvenientonlinesubmissionThoroughpeerreviewNospaceconstraintsorcolorgurechargesImmediatepublicationonacceptanceInclusioninPubMed,CAS,ScopusandGoogleScholarResearchwhichisfreelyavailableforredistributionSubmityourmanuscriptatwww.
biomedcentral.
com/submitDunnetal.
BMCPsychology2013,1:21Page7of7http://www.
biomedcentral.
com/2050-7283/1/21