The effect of instructions on view-specificity in young children's drawing and picture selection

Are young children’s drawings canonically biased?

In a between-subjects design, 4- to 6-year-olds were asked to draw from three-dimensional (3D) models, two-and-a-half-dimensional (212D) models with or without depth cues, or two-dimensional (2D) models of a familiar object (a saucepan) in noncanonical orientations (handle at the back or at the front). Results showed that canonical errors were produced mainly by the youngest children in the 3D models copying condition. A large proportion of errors did not, however, reflect biases toward the participants' "own" view of the object; rather, these errors reflected biases toward their "best" view of the object. Drawing from models having fewer than three dimensions resulted in a significant increase in view-specific productions in all children for the back orientation. When a more complex front orientation of the object was proposed, sensitivity to model type developed gradually with age. Results are discussed in terms of the flexibility of the mental model that mediates between children's perception of a model object and the depiction decisions.

Developmental Transition from Object-Centered to Viewer-Centered Information in Young Children's Drawings

This study examined the developmental transition from object-centered to viewer-centered information in young children's drawings. 66 children, ages 4 to 6 years old, drew a miniature snowman as they saw it. The miniature snowman was presented to them with the head positioned to the (1) front, (2) back, (3) left, or (4) right. The face of the snowman was always down and concealed while the children were drawing. 4-yr.-olds more often made canonical drawings, 5-yr.-olds made conflicting drawings, and 6-yr.-olds made view-specific or vertical drawings. These findings suggested that the 4-yr.-olds drew an object using object-centered information, the 5-yr.-olds confused object- with viewer-centered information, and 6-yr.-olds represented an object by viewer-centered information.

The role of strategic visual attention in children's drawing development

The many variables that affect the production of visually realistic drawings in children (such as instructions and contrasting models), have been widely documented in the research literature. The experiments reported here assess one variable that has been largely ignored, namely the attention that the child pays towards the drawing model. First, it was shown that the progression from intellectual to visual realism occurred between six and eight years of age, and was accompanied by a spontaneous increase in attention towards the drawing models. A second experiment showed that the drawing performance of the 6-year-olds was enhanced by contrasting tasks and explicit instructions. At all ages, explicit instructions increased attention towards the model, and the use of an efficient attentional strategy was associated with visually realistic drawings. These studies provide further evidence that intellectual and visual realism are not distinct developmental stages, but may instead reflect the use of different attentional strategies by children.

The effect of object alignment on the representation of depth in young children's drawings

Light and Humphreys (1981, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 521-530) provided evidence that young children's drawings, despite infrequently showing view-specific occlusion, do systematically reflect spatial relations within an array. The present research tested the hypothesis that young children's preferences for canonical "best views" interact with array-faithful tendencies to increase early uses of occlusion. Forty-three children between 4 and 7 years of age drew arrays like Light and Humphreys' end-to-end alignments, with end-on views of objects in depth, and arrays aligned side-to-side, with canonical side-views of objects in depth. Significantly fewer single-object, view-specific occlusions were produced for end-to-end than for side-to-side alignments. Nevertheless, the former reveal that more children are able to use the vertical dimension to depict multiple objects in depth. Other comparisons suggest an interaction in multiple-object depictions of canonicality with spatial dimension and graphic complexity.