Are young children’s drawings canonically biased?

J. Experimental Child Psychology 90 (2005) 48–64

www.elsevier.com/locate/jecp

Are young children�s drawingscanonically biased?

Delphine Picarda,*, Karine Durandb

a Department of Psychology, University of Montpellier III, Route de Mende, 34 199 Montpellier, Franceb University of Bourgogne, Pole AAFE, Esplanade Erasme, 21065 Dijon, France

Received 16 December 2003; revised 6 September 2004

Abstract

In a between-subjects design, 4- to 6-year-olds were asked to draw from three-dimensional

(3D) models, two-and-a-half-dimensional ð212DÞ models with or without depth cues, or two-di-

mensional (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 chil-

dren for the back orientation. When a more complex front orientation of the object was pro-

posed, 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.

� 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Children�s drawings; Canonical representation

0022-0965/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.09.002

* Corresponding author. Fax: +33 4 67 79 55 65.

E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Picard).

mailto:[email protected]

D. Picard, K. Durand / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 90 (2005) 48–64 49

Introduction

The literature on drawing development has emphasized a main transition between4 and 7 years of age, from a stage at which children draw ‘‘what they know’’ about

scenes or objects to a stage at which they draw ‘‘what they see’’ from a specific view-

point. Such a phenomenon has received various descriptive accounts in terms of intel-

lectual versus visual realism (Luquet, 1927), array-specific versus view-specific

drawings (Light & MacIntosh, 1980), object-centered versus view-centered represen-

tations (Williats, 1985), and content-based versus structure-based drawings (Chen,

1985). For most authors, inaccurate drawings of a topic (from the observer�s pointof view) result from children�s interfering internal representation of the topic. Accord-ing to Luquet (1927), an internal model mediates between children�s observation of a

scene or an object and their drawing. This representation influences the drawing pro-

cess such that knowledge intrudes on the pictorial decisions of young children.

Evidence of knowledge intrusion can be found in depictions of the spatial rela-

tions between discrete objects in a scene (e.g., Clark, 1897; Cox, 1978, 1981, 1985;

Freeman, 1980; Freeman, Eiser, & Sayers, 1977; Hudges & Donaldson, 1979; Light

& Humphreys, 1981). Typically, children are asked to draw one object behind an-

other (e.g., blocks, balls, apples, little pigs). Rarely do 5- to 7-year-olds produceocclusions; instead, they draw the two objects separately, either in vertical or hori-

zontal relations. Light and MacIntosh (1980) related such errors to young children�stendency to depict the relations that are intrinsic to the array of objects themselves.

Realistic drawings are produced by older children and adults, who appear to be able

to consider relations that are purely relative to the viewpoint of an observer. Accord-

ing to Crook (1985), errors in the depiction of spatial relations between discrete ob-

jects can be accounted for by the reliance on an internally constructed representation

of the scene. In the vein of Luquet�s theory, Crook suggested that, in viewing a scene,children transform it into a representation that approximates a catalog of constitu-

ents (through itemization or segregation processes) that are appropriately tagged

with information concerning spatial relations (according to a limited number of

drawing rules or conventions). Light and MacIntosh (1980) highlighted the crucial

influence of drawing rules. When a toy house was viewed through a transparent glass

behind which it had been placed, young children often drew the two objects beside

each other; however, when the house was placed inside the glass, the children shifted

toward view-specific drawings. The inside graphic rule interfered with drawing thehouse behind glass relation but not the house inside glass relation, although the final

appearance of the scene was kept constant for both types.

Intrusion of knowledge into the management of a drawing is also commonly ob-

served for the depiction of familiar objects with distinctive features. For instance,

Freeman and Janikoun (1972) showed that young children tended to include the

handle of a coffee cup even when the handle was not visible when copying from a

three-dimensional (3D) array. Freeman (1980) and Davis (1984) obtained similar re-

sults using opaque and transparent cups with their handles turned away (from thechildren�s point of view). In both cases, young children showed a clear failure to

50 D. Picard, K. Durand / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 90 (2005) 48–64

encode viewpoint; they drew the handle at the side of the cup. The transparent cup

with its handle turned to the back was particularly confusing for the young children.

This model object involved drawing the handle as a rod within the outline of the cup,

a type of shape that children avoided or failed to produce, as if the model were a dis-

torted or strange representation of the object (Freeman, 1980).Errors in the depiction of such familiar objects with distinctive features have been

referred to as canonical biases (Davis, 1985; Freeman, 1980). According to Freeman

(1980), the term canonical refers to the fact that ‘‘there is always an optimal method

of conveying basic structural information.’’ A canonical representation is commonly

defined in terms of the type of information present in the representation (the features

that convey meaning) and in terms of feature orientation (e.g., van Sommers, 1984).

For young children, the model object acts as a stimulus to trigger their canonical rep-

resentation of that object. Young children consequently draw ‘‘what they know’’ aboutthe model object in conformity with their own canonical representation of that object

rather than ‘‘what they see’’ from a particular point of view. Improved performance

with age could be explained by a decrease in the reliance on canonical representations

or by children�s ability to inhibit their influence on the drawing process. Another pos-

sibility is that the internal models become more flexible as age increases, thereby inte-

grating more andmore view-specific information (Crook, 1985).Whatever the case, in

the classical view on the development of the depiction of familiar objects with distinc-

tive features, there is a shift froma stage atwhich drawing ismarkedby canonical biasesto a stage at which depictions of objects are visually realistic or view specific.

The view that this sequence of changes in drawing development is rigid is, however,

negated by an impressive number of studies showing high sensitivity to context in chil-

dren�s drawings. Globally, these studies have shown that children as young as 5 years

of age can produce visually realistic drawings of objects (or scenes) under certain

drawing situations or contexts. Appropriate manipulations of the verbal instructions

used for drawing (Barrett, Beaumont, & Jennett, 1985; Barrett & Bridson, 1983; Beal

& Arnold, 1990; Cox, 1978, 1981; Lewis, Russell, & Berridge, 1993) can induce moreadvanced or more accurate drawings in young children. Lewis et al. (1993), for in-

stance, showed that 5-year-olds were more likely to exclude a hidden handle in their

drawings of a cup when the instructions required focusing on the exact appearance of

the cup. In contrast, when the instructions were worded more ambiguously (e.g.,

‘‘draw what you see of the cup from where you are sitting’’), young children tended

to make commission errors (hidden feature inclusion). The type of context in which

drawings of familiar objects are elicited may also affect the way in which objects

are depicted—either positively or negatively. Contexts using communication games(Light & McEwen, 1987; Light & Simmons, 1983) were shown to improve, to a cer-

tain extent, encoding view-specific information about objects in depth relations. With

regard to the depiction of familiar objects, Davis (1983) demonstrated that the intro-

duction of a second cup in a canonical orientation (handle at the side) beside a cup

with its handle turned away undermined young children�s tendency to produce canon-

ically biased drawings. The pair cup context created a visual contrast between the two

objects to which children were sensitive (Davis, 1985). In contrast, contexts involving

a prior naming and examination (visual or manual) of the to-be-drawn object


enhanced the probability that children would produce errors in their drawings (Brem-

ner & Moore, 1984; Krascum, Tregenza, & Whitehead, 1996; Lewis et al., 1993).

Another crucial factor affecting children�s ability to produce accurate drawings of

objects relates to the degree of familiarity with the proposed object. In general,

young children made more errors in copying a line diagram of a familiar object thanin copying a line diagram of an unfamiliar one (Phillips, Hobbs, & Pratt, 1978), even

when the unfamiliar object was more complex than the familiar object (Moore,

1987). One possible explanation for this is that the presentation of a familiar object

activates children�s internal representation of that object and then knowledge in-

trudes on the depiction process. Indeed, Lee (1989) demonstrated that the errors

were related directly to the very knowledge of the object that lines represented rather

than to the difficulties in drawing the lines themselves. Unfamiliar objects can, how-

ever, have a different impact on children�s drawing behavior as a function of theirage. Krascum et al. (1996) showed that young children produced more view-specific

drawings of an unfamiliar object (e.g., a feather duster) than they did of a familiar

object (e.g., a cup) when their distinctive features were turned to the back, whereas

the reverse occurred with 7-year-olds. The authors suggested that in these older chil-

dren, hidden feature inclusion reflected their motivation to communicate newly ac-

quired conceptual knowledge. This demonstrates that canonical biases can be

elicited in children who are at an age when they normally produce view-specific rep-

resentations of objects. Therefore, the notion of canonical bias should not be re-stricted to a given age or stage in drawing development; rather, it should be

related to an influential knowledge-based representation of an object.

One question that remains to be answered is the extent to which young children

rely on their internal canonical models when drawing objects with distinctive features

that are presented in noncanonical views. Most studies have assumed that erroneous

drawings reflected a canonical bias in young children, but no study has collected chil-

dren�s canonical drawings to ensure that the bias is due to their canonical represen-

tations. Free drawings are commonly used to assess internal representations,although they might not be a direct reflection of these mental representations (Koss-

lyn, Hedelmeyer, & Lockear, 1977). Introducing a free-drawing task prior to copying

could provide information about the nature of the canonical representation in chil-

dren�s minds, and this could further be used to determine the nature of their copying

errors. More precisely, errors in copying should reflect a canonical bias in cases

where the copied drawings are similar to the spontaneous ones. If the copied draw-

ings conform neither to the proposed external models nor to the children�s internalmodels, errors cannot be considered as a pure reflection of the canonical representa-tion. In our view, canonical bias might be overestimated in the literature. The current

study was designed to explore this possibility.

In the current study, 4- to 6-year-olds were introduced to a free-drawing task of a

familiar object (a saucepan) prior to copying tasks of that object in noncanonical ori-

entations. We used a saucepan due to its simple structure. As with the coffee cup, the

saucepan consists of two main features: a body and a handle. The object was pre-

sented with its identifying feature (handle) in two atypical orientations. In the back

orientation, the handle was turned out of the children�s view so that it was not


visible, whereas in the front orientation, the handle was turned facing the children so

that it was partially visible. The front orientation provided a much more complex

view of the object because the feature was partially visible and presented an atypical

shape from the observer�s viewpoint. As with the transparent cup (Freeman, 1980),

the saucepan with its handle facing the children might be confusing for young chil-dren, thereby eliciting many more errors than does the saucepan with its hidden han-

dle. We hypothesized that pure canonical bias would be responsible for only a

minority of the drawing errors and that such bias would occur mainly in very young

children (4 years of age) when copying real-life objects. In addition, when errors oc-

cur, noncanonical errors are likely to be as common as canonical ones. The copying

of real-life objects should lead to a great number of drawing errors due to a strong

activation of the objects� internal models. In contrast, using models with fewer than

three dimensions (e.g., photographs, line diagrams) should result in weaker activa-tion of internal models and less influence of the model on the drawing process—

and, therefore, in fewer copying errors.

The benefit of copying from line drawings of objects is clearly established in the

literature. For instance, Bremner, Morse, Hughes, and Andreasen (2000) showed

the superiority of copying line diagrams over drawing from real-life objects (a cube)

and demonstrated the possible transfer of performance from the former to the latter.

Chen (1985) also showed that 6- and 7-year-olds benefited from models having fewer

than three dimensions for the cube drawing, suggesting that the key problem lay intranslating depth information onto the picture plan. Interestingly, for the cylinder

drawing, children benefited much more from a line-drawing model than from a pho-

tograph model. Bremner et al. (2000) suggested that, for a more complex object (a cyl-

inder), children experienced difficulties in translating boundaries to lines in addition

to the problem of translating depth information on a two-dimensional (2D) surface.

We compared 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds� drawn copies of real-life objects, photo-

graphs of the objects (with or without background depth cues), and line drawings

of the objects. Real-life saucepans were 3D models, photographs were two-and-a-half-dimensional ð2 1

2DÞ objects (Marr, 1982), and line drawings were 2D models.

The presence of depth cues in the background of the photographic models was

manipulated to explore whether depth cues would modify the perception and subse-

quent depiction of these models. If sensitivity to depth cues occurs, children are likely

to process the models as if they are in the presence of real objects rather than repre-

sentations of the objects. Children should consequently produce many more errors

when the 212D models include depth cues than when the models have no depth cues.

A between-subjects design was adopted so that a comparison of copying perfor-mances could be made among four separate groups of children, with each group

being assigned to one model type. Whatever the model type, each child had to copy

the saucepan in a back and front orientation. We hypothesized that for a simple non-

canonical back view of the saucepan, all children should benefit from models with

fewer than three dimensions, as evidenced by an increase in the percentage of

view-specific depictions of the object. For a more complex front view of the sauce-

pan, sensitivity to model type (reflected by the benefit obtained in terms of view-spe-

cific productions) should increase with age.


Method

Participants

A total of 288 right-handed children 4, 5, and 6 years of age were observed. Hand-

edness was assessed simply by using a task in which children were asked to reach for

a pen placed on a table for writing their names. They were considered as right-

handed when they used their right hand for both reaching the pen and writing their

names. The participants were divided into four experimental groups (72 children/

group) that varied as a function of the model type used in the copying task: 3D,

212D with depth cues in the background of the photographs, 21

2D with no depth cues,

and 2D model. Each experimental group had 24 4-year-olds (M = 4 years 6 months,

range = 4 years 1 month to 4 years 10 months), 24 5-year-olds (M = 5 years 6

months, range = 5 years 0 months to 5 years 11 months), and 24 6-year-olds

(M = 6 years 6 months, range = 6 years 2 months to 6 years 10 months). There were

equal numbers of boys and girls in each age group. None of the children observed

was advanced or retarded with regard to schooling or suffered from any psychomo-

tor drawing or handwriting disorder. Children were from state preschools and ele-

mentary schools in a middle-class area of a southern French town.

Materials

The object for the 3D condition was a real saucepan with a gray body and a blackhandle. Two black and white photographs of the saucepan with and without depth

cues in the background were used for the two 212D conditions, and two drawings of

the saucepan (drawn by the experimenter with a black pencil) were used in the 2D

condition (Fig. 1). Children drew with a normal pencil (HB) on a separate sheet

of paper (21.0 · 14.8 cm) for each drawing.

Procedure

Children were tested individually while seated at a table in a quiet area inside their

school. Two successive tasks were proposed: a free-drawing task and a copying task.

The free-drawing task was always presented first because it provided baseline data

for analyzing the drawings produced in the copying task. The free-drawing taskwas the same for the children in each experimental group. In this task, children were

asked to draw a saucepan from memory, without any model at their disposal. The

following instruction was used: ‘‘Can you draw a saucepan?’’ Once the drawing

was completed, it was put aside.

In the copying task, children were presented with 3D models of the saucepan, 212D

models with depth cues, 212D models with no depth cues, or 2D models, according to

their experimental group. The 3D models of the saucepan were presented on a sup-

port so that they were at eye level. The other models (photographs and line draw-ings) were presented flat on the table. In each group, both the front and back

views were presented successively to each child (Fig. 1) with a counterbalanced order

Fig. 1. Photograph and line-drawing models used in the copying task.


of presentation. For each view, the following verbal instruction was used: ‘‘Look

attentively at the saucepan and draw exactly what you see from where you are sit-ting.’’ Time for copying was not limited. No feedback or comment was made during

or after the copying.

Results

Free-drawing task

Drawings obtained under the free-drawing condition fall under five depiction

modes: no handle, handle at top, handle at bottom, handle at the right, and handle

at the left. Two judges working independently coded each individual free drawing

(288 total drawings) according to these five types, and complete agreement was ob-

tained. Table 1 presents their distribution in percentages per age group. Note that

this distribution remained the same globally when considering each experimentalgroup separately.

Results from Table 1 show that the vast majority of the children (95%) included

the identifying feature in their drawings of the object. Drawing the handle horizon-

tally (to the right or to the left) increased significantly from 4 to 5 years of age

Table 1

Distribution of the five different types of spontaneous drawings of the saucepan by age group (percentages)

Free-drawing type

No handle Handle

at top

Handle

at bottom

Handle

at the left

Handle

at the right

4 years 9 9 22 23 36

5 years 3 14 15 35 33

6 years 2 6 4 33 54


(64.0%) to 6 years of age (87.5%), v2 (1) = 7.34, p < .01. In contrast, drawing the han-

dle vertically (at the top or at the bottom) decreased in frequency from 4 and 5 years

of age (29.7%) to 6 years of age (10.4%), v2 (1) = 32.97, p < .01. Finally, right-facing

orientations that conform to adults� canonical representation of this object (van

Sommers, 1984) prevailed over left orientations at 6 years of age, v2 (1) = 4.76,

p < .05.

Copying task

Free drawings of the saucepan were used as baseline data to specify the nature of

the drawing errors found under copying conditions.1 Drawings produced in the

copying task had canonical errors when the orientation of the handle departed from

that of the proposed view of the object in the models and was similar to that of the

children�s spontaneous drawings. Drawings showed noncanonical errors when the

orientation of the handle departed both from view of the model and from that of

the children�s spontaneous drawings. Finally, drawings were considered as view-spe-cific drawings when the orientation of the handle in the produced drawings was con-

gruent with that of the proposed view of the object in the models. Note that some

children (12 of 288) produced a saucepan with no handle in both their free drawings

and their copying of the back view. In these cases, it was not possible to determine

whether the children assimilated the external model to their internal models of the

1 A single free-drawing task (prior to copying tasks) can be used as an assessment of children�scanonical representation and as baseline data to determine the nature of the drawing errors, but only to

the extent that the free graphic productions are relatively stable in time for a given child. In a preliminary

study in which 60 4- to 6-year-olds drew a saucepan from memory on three occasions, the vast majority of

children (93.3%) demonstrated consistency in their drawing types over at least two drawings. This

consistency supports the use of free drawings as baseline data to determine the nature of children�scanonical representations of the saucepan.


object (canonical errors) or whether they accommodated to the external model

(view-specific drawings). By considering that these drawings were view-specific

drawings, we attributed to these children the more advanced type of behavior.

Two judges working independently coded each individual drawing (576 total draw-

ings) according to these three types, using the children�s free drawings to determinecanonical or noncanonical errors. Interjudge agreement was 96.87%, and the few

disagreements were settled by discussion.

Fig. 2 shows the distribution of the view-specific drawings, canonical errors, and

noncanonical errors by age, view, and model type. A 3 (age) · 2 (order of presenta-

tion of the views) · 4 (model type) · 2 (view) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA),

with age, order of presentation of the views, and model type as between-subject fac-

tors and view as a within-subject factor, was carried out on the number of view-spe-

cific drawings. Separate ANOVAs were also run on the number of canonical errorsand noncanonical errors. Order of presentation of the views had no significant im-

pact on the dependent variables, F < 1, and so data were collapsed over this

variable.

Considering first view-specific drawings, the ANOVA revealed significant main ef-

fects associated with age, model type, and view, Fs > 40, as well as a significant inter-

action between view and model type, F (3,276) = 20.74, p < .01. However, these

effects were subsumed under the interaction of age, view, and model type, F (6,

276) = 6.14, p < .0001. Post hoc analyses (Scheffe tests) indicated that sensitivity tomodel type was age related for the copying of the front view, but this was not the

case for the copying of the back view (all ps > .21 for age differences). As Fig. 2 dem-

onstrates, the youngest children benefited only from the presence of a 2D model of

the front view. At 4 years of age, the 2D model of the front view elicited more view-

specific drawings (M = 54.2%) than did all other models of that view (212D model:

M = 4.2%; 212D depth model: M = 12.5%; 3D model: M = 0%), p < .05. No signifi-

cant differences, p = .99, were found among models of the front view having more

than two dimensions at 4 years of age. In contrast, 6-year-old children benefitedfrom all models of the front view having fewer than three dimensions. These children

produced more view-specific drawings when copying from these models (212D depth

model:M = 66.6%; 212D model:M = 62.5%; 2D model: M = 100%) than from the 3D

model of the front view (M = 8.3%), p < .05. At 6 years of age, differences among

models of the front view having fewer than three dimensions were not significant,

p > .69. At an intermediate age level, the children benefited from both the 2D model

and the 212D model of the front view when it was free of depth cues. The 5-year-olds

produced more view-specific drawings in those conditions (2D model: M = 95.8%;212D model: M = 62.5%) than when they drew from the 21

2D model with depth cues

or the 3D model (M = 20.8% and M = 4.2%, respectively), p < .05. At 5 years of

age, differences between 2D and 212D models of the front view were not significant,

p = .88, nor were differences between 212D depth and 3D models of that view,

p = .99. Thus, sensitivity to the presence of depth cues occurred but was restricted

to the 5-year-olds when children were asked to copy a complex (front) view.

With respect to the drawing errors, results from Fig. 2 show that percentages of

both the canonical errors and noncanonical errors decreased with age,

Fig. 2. Distribution of the view-specific drawings, noncanonical errors, and canonical errors by age, view,

and model type.


F (2,276) = 8.90, p < .001, and F (2,276) = 8.57, p < .001, respectively. Post hoc anal-

yses (Scheffe tests) indicated that canonical errors were observed mainly in the draw-ings of the youngest children (M = 22.4%) and rarely at 5 and 6 years of age


(M = 11.9% and M = 7.3%, respectively), p < .05. No significant difference was ob-

tained between 5 and 6 years of age, p = .44. Similarly, there were fewer errors of

a noncanonical type with increasing age, with a significant decline being observed be-

tween 4 years of age (M = 34.9%) and 5 and 6 years of age (M = 23.9% and

M = 18.2%, respectively), p < .05. No significant difference was obtained between 5and 6 years of age, p = .37. The pattern of results for these two types of errors

was globally the mirror image of that described for the view-specific drawings in

terms of sensitivity to view and model type.

The interesting result here concerns the relative proportion of canonical errors

found in children. As Fig. 2 demonstrates, the canonical errors were not the majority

of the drawing errors, regardless of age. If we consider drawings of the back view, the

canonical errors (24 of 288 drawings) were not significantly more frequent than the

noncanonical errors (34 of 288 drawings), v2 (1) = 1.72, p > .05. Note that errors forthe back view were restricted to the 3D copying condition and occurred principally

in the youngest children. For drawings of the front view, canonical errors (57 of 288

drawings) were significantly less frequent than noncanonical errors (113 of 288 draw-

ings), v2 (1) = 19.78, p < .01. Similar patterns of results were found when the age

groups were considered individually.

Relations between free drawings and copying errors

Finally, we analyzed the types of drawings children produced under copying con-

ditions in relation to their free drawings. Indeed, because children�s free drawings

were used to evaluate the nature of the copying errors (canonical vs. noncanonical),

age-related changes in the former measure could have affected and accentuated the

pattern of age-related change in the latter measure. To get a picture of what children

actually drew, we compared the types of drawings they produced under the free-

drawing condition with those produced they produced under the copying condition.

Results are presented separately for the back view (Table 2A) and for the front view(Table 2B). The leftmost column concerns view-specific drawings, with gray cells

Table 2A

Distribution of the children (N = 288) as a function of their type of free drawing and their type of drawing

produced under the back view copying condition

Free drawing Drawing produced under copying condition (back view)

No

handle

Handle

at front

Handle

at top

Handle

at bottom

Handle

at the left

Handle

at the right

No handle 12 — 2 — — —

Handle at front — — — — — —

Handle at top 23 — 4 — — 1

Handle at bottom 25 — 2 8 3 1

Handle at the left 70 — 8 4 5 1

Handle at the right 100 — 9 3 — 7

Note. Gray cells refer to canonical errors, whereas cells with italic numbers refer to noncanonical errors.

The left column concerns view-specific drawing.

Table 2B

Distribution of the children (N = 288) as a function of their type of free drawing and their type of drawing

produced under the front view copying condition

Free drawing Drawing produced under copying condition (front view)

Handle

at front

No handle Handle

at top

Handle

at bottom

Handle

at the left

Handle

at the right

Handle at front — — — — — —

No handle 5 5 1 2 — 1

Handle at top 7 — 10 10 — 1

Handle at bottom 11 1 9 16 1 1

Handle at the left 38 1 10 25 10 4

Handle at the right 57 — 16 28 2 16

Note. Gray cells refer to canonical errors, whereas cells with italic numbers refer to noncanonical errors.

The left column concerns view-specific drawing.


referring to canonical errors and cells with italic numbers referring to noncanonical

errors.

Results indicate that canonical errors were more frequently associated with prior

free productions of the handle at the top or at the bottom than at the right or at the

left. When the back view was copied (see gray cells in Table 2A), 12 of 67 children

who spontaneously produced the handle at the top or at the bottom went on to com-

mit canonical errors, whereas only 12 of 207 children who freely produced the handle

at the right or at the left later committed canonical errors, v2 (1) = 9.29, p < .01. Asimilar pattern of results was found for the front view (see gray cells in Table 2B),

although the percentage of errors was higher. Among the children who spontane-

ously produced no handle or the handle at the top or at the bottom, 31 of 81 went

on to commit canonical errors, whereas only 26 of 207 children who freely drew the

handle at the right or at the left later produced canonical errors, v2 (1) = 24.2,

p < .01. Thus, we might suspect that age-related change in canonical errors was

accentuated by age-related changes in free-drawing types.

However, this is unlikely given that a similar, but reverse, association was ob-tained with respect to the view-specific drawings, with this measure not being

dependent on a measurement of what children drew in the free-drawing condi-

tion. When the back view was copied (see left column in Table 2A), only 48

of 67 children who spontaneously produced the handle at the top or at the bot-

tom went on to produce view-specific drawings. In contrast, 170 of 207 children

who freely produced the handle at the right or at the left later produced view-spe-

cific drawings, v2 (1) = 3.6, p < .05. When the front view was copied (see left col-

umn in Table 2B), only 23 of 81 children who spontaneously produced no handleor the handle at the top or at the bottom went on to produce view-specific draw-

ings. In contrast, 95 of 207 children who freely produced the handle at the right

or at the left later produced view-specific drawings, v2 (1) = 7.5, p < .01. The likely

explanation for these associations is that age affected both the way in which chil-

dren freely depicted the object and the way in which they drew it from external

models.


Finally, an interesting result from Tables 2A and 2B relates to the types of non-

canonical errors children produced in response to the back view and the front view.

Noncanonical errors indeed varied in type as a function of the view. When the back

view was copied (see cells with italic numbers in Table 2A), there was a significantly

greater number of drawings with the handle at the top (21 of 34 drawings) than withthe handle at other orientations (13 of 34 drawings), v2 (2) = 12.45, p < .01. When the

front view was presented (see cells with italic numbers in Table 2B), most drawings

showed the handle at the bottom (65 of 113 drawings), with a smaller number depict-

ing the saucepan with its handle at the top (36 of 113 drawings). Very few drawings

depicted the saucepan with its handle at the other orientations (12 of 113 drawings).

Drawings of the saucepan with its handle at the bottom prevailed over the other

types of drawings for the front view, v2 (2) = 35.73, p < .01.

Discussion

The current study investigated the conditions under which 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds

rely on their own canonical representation of a familiar object (a saucepan) when

copying from models of that object (3D, 212D, or 2D) in two noncanonical orienta-

tions (back and front). The aim was to show that canonical biases may be overesti-mated in the literature by considering them in terms of an assumed abstract

representation rather than the children�s own internal representation (as evidenced

by their free drawings of the object).

The findings from this study first confirmed a decrease between 4 and 6 years of

age of the drawing errors made by children when asked to draw from models of a

noncanonically oriented object (for similar results, see Davis, 1983; Freeman,

1980; Freeman & Janikoun, 1972). Furthermore, and as hypothesized, although

many more drawing errors occurred when a complex view (front) rather than a sim-ple view (back) was proposed to the children, most of the errors were not canonical.

Roughly one half of the errors found for the back view and two thirds of the errors

found for the front view were noncanonical errors. An investigation into the nature

of the noncanonical errors revealed that drawings of the handle at the top and at the

bottom were observed most frequently in response to the back and front views,

respectively.

We would suggest that the activation of a rather rigid conceptual representation

(the canonical representation of the object in mind) might be responsible for assim-ilative drawing behavior (canonical biases) in young children. However, in most

cases, the activated knowledge-based representation presented a certain level of flex-

ibility so that it took into account the spatial orientation of the proposed object. The

very knowledge that the handle was at the back or at the front of the saucepan prob-

ably made those children mentally rotate the perceived object from a frontal view to

a top view so that the invisible or partially visible handle appeared in its entirety.

There was indeed a preference for mentally representing the handle at the top when

it was known to be at the back and for mentally representing the handle at the bot-tom when it was known to be at the front. In accordance with Light and Nix (1983),


we suggest that most of the visually unrealistic drawings produced by the young chil-

dren reflect biases toward best views rather than own views of objects.

Second, our results confirmed that errors were committed mainly under the real-

life object copying condition. All children benefited from models having fewer than

three dimensions when a simple noncanonical view (back) was to be drawn; theirability to produce view-specific drawings reached ceiling at all ages for these models.

In contrast, sensitivity to model type developed gradually with increasing age for the

more complex front view of the object; the advantage of the 2D model was observed

from 4 years of age, whereas the advantage of the 212D model without depth cues was

observed from 5 years of age. Finally, the older children benefited from all models

having fewer than three dimensions.

The current results clearly illustrate how representational drawing abilities in chil-

dren depend on the production context, in particular on whether the model is 3D or2D (see also Bremner et al., 2000; Chen, 1985). Previous results demonstrated that

young infants did not perceive a 2D display as being equivalent to a 3D display.

However, when sufficient depth cues were included in the 2D display, young infants

behaved as if it were a 3D display (Durand, Lecuyer, & Frichtel, 2003). These results

echo our results for sensitivity to the presence of depth cues in the photographic

models of the complex front view at 5 years of age. We would suggest that providing

children with photographic or line-drawn models of noncanonically oriented objects

globally acted to undermine the probability that they rely on knowledge-based rep-resentations. Photographic models specify the object in a given fixed orientation and

provide cues about how to translate 3D information on the 2D plane of the paper

(Freeman, 1980). Line-drawing models further provide cues about how to graphi-

cally depict the object (specifically when its handle is at the front), and this can be

helpful for young children who encounter boundary-to-line translation problems

(Chen, 1985; Freeman, 1980). The 4-year-olds in our study probably encountered

such problems when asked to copy the complex front view. From a different perspec-

tive, it could also be argued that the required depiction of the handle at the frontinterfered with the inside graphic rule present at this age (Taylor & Bacharach,

1982). However, it is unlikely that the young children lacked the graphic skills to pro-

duce the required graphic shape (Lee, 1989).

The findings from this study support the conclusion that canonical biases in chil-

dren�s drawing behavior are overestimated in the literature, at least when considering

that canonical biases result from assimilative behavior in the Piagetian sense of the

term (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956). The traditional view supposing a shift from a stage

where drawing is marked by canonical biases to a stage where children make realisticor view-specific depictions of objects needs to be revised. Tasks requiring a breaking

of normal viewing habits are always, to a certain extent, under the influence of

knowledge-based (conceptual) representations that are automatically derived from

the perception of the object (Crook, 1985; Vinter, 1999). These representations or

mental models (Luquet, 1927) mediate between the children�s perception of an exter-

nal model of object and their drawings of that object. When the mental model refers

to a rigid canonical representation of the object, knowledge can intrude in the depic-

tion process and provoke drawing errors of a canonical type. However, and as our


results revealed, rigidity did not last for a long period of time, and a minimal level of

representational flexibility existed, such that errors in drawing behavior reflected, for

the most part, biases toward a best view of the proposed object (Light & Nix, 1983).

The literature on the development of flexibility in children�s drawings produced un-

der innovation requirements (e.g., drawing nonexistent objects) offers similar conclu-sions in this regard (e.g., Karmiloff-Smith, 1990; Picard & Vinter, 1999). In our view,

canonical biases in drawing behavior might be regarded as the manifestation of a

newly acquired representation of a given object that is momentarily highly influential

on depiction processes and not very open to modification (see also Krascum et al.,

1996). Canonical representations of the young children are, however, clearly much

more flexible than has been assumed previously.

Finally, it should be noted that the reported results concerned only one stimulus

(a saucepan), and this consequently questions the external validity of the results. Thecurrent results are likely to generalize to (at least) other types of graspable objects

with a simple structure (namely, a body and a handle). This includes objects such

as the traditionally studied coffee cups but also decanters, teapots, pipes, hammers,

and the like. Whether our findings can account for a wider range of objects, specif-

ically for much more complex objects such as people and houses, could be a motive

for further studies on the drawing domain.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the children who participated in the study and thank M. and

K. Tyler for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

Barrett, M., Beaumont, A., & Jennett, M. (1985). Some children sometimes do what they have been told to

do: Task demands and verbal instructions in children�s drawing. In N. H. Freeman & M. V. Cox

(Eds.), Visual order: The nature and development of pictorial representation (pp. 176–187). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Barrett, M., & Bridson, A. (1983). The effect of instruction upon children�s drawing. British Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 1, 175–178.

Beal, C. R., & Arnold, D. S. (1990). The effect of instructions on view-specific representations in young

children�s drawing and picture selection. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 393–400.

Bremner, G., & Moore, S. (1984). Prior visual inspection and object naming: Two factors that enhance

hidden-feature inclusion in young children�s drawings. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2,

371–376.

Bremner, J. G., Morse, R., Hughes, S., & Andreasen, G. (2000). Relations between drawing cubes and

copying line diagrams of cubes in 7- to 10-year-old children. Child Development, 71, 621–634.

Chen, M.-J. (1985). Young children�s representational drawings of solid objects: A comparison of drawing

and copying. In N. H. Freeman & M. V. Cox (Eds.), Visual order: The nature and development of

pictorial representation (pp. 157–175). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, A. B. (1897). The child�s attitude towards perspective problems. In E. Barnes (Ed.). Studies in

education (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


Cox, M. V. (1978). Spatial depth relationships in young children�s drawings. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 26, 551–554.

Cox, M. V. (1981). One thing behind another: Problems of representation in young children. Educational


Cox, M. V. (1985). One object behind another: Young children�s use of array-specific versus view-specificrepresentations. In N. H. Freeman & M. V. Cox (Eds.), Visual order: The nature and development of

pictorial representation (pp. 188–201). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Crook, C. (1985). Knowledge and appearance. In N. H. Freeman & M. V. Cox (Eds.), Visual order: The

nature and development of pictorial representation (pp. 248–265). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Davis, A. M. (1983). Contextual sensitivity in young children�s drawings. Journal of Experimental Child


Davis, A. M. (1984). Noncanonical orientation without occlusion: Children�s drawings of transparent

objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 451–462.

Davis, A. M. (1985). The canonical bias: Young children�s drawings of familiar objects. In N. H. Freeman

& M. V. Cox (Eds.), Visual order: The nature and development of pictorial representation (pp. 202–213).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Durand, K., Lecuyer, R., & Frichtel, M. (2003). Representation of the third dimension: The use of

perspective cues by 3- and 4-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 26, 151–166.

Freeman, N. H. (1980). Strategies of representation in young children. London: Academic Press.

Freeman, N. H., Eiser, C., & Sayers, J. (1977). Children�s strategies in producing three-dimensional

relationships on a two-dimensional surface. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 23, 305–314.

Freeman, N. H., & Janikoun, R. (1972). Intellectual realism in children�s drawings of a familiar object with

distinctive features. Child Development, 43, 1116–1121.

Hudges, M., & Donaldson, M. (1979). The use of hiding games for studying the coordination of

viewpoints. Educational Review, 31, 133–140.

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1990). Constraints on representational change: Evidence from children�s drawing.

Cognition, 34, 57–83.

Kosslyn, S. M., Hedelmeyer, K. H., & Lockear, E. P. (1977). Children�s drawings as data about internal

representations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 23, 191–211.

Krascum, R., Tregenza, C., & Whitehead, P. (1996). Hidden-feature inclusions in children�s drawings: Theeffects of age and model familiarity. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 441–455.

Lee, M. (1989). When is an object not an object. The effect of Ming upon the copying of line drawings.

British Journal of Psychology, 80, 15–37.

Lewis, C., Russell, C., & Berridge, D. (1993). When is a mug not a mug? Effects of content, naming, and

instructions on children�s drawings. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 291–302.

Light, P. H., & Humphreys, J. (1981). Internal spatial relationships in young children�s drawings. Journalof Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 521–530.

Light, P. H., & MacIntosh, E. (1980). Depth relationships in young children�s drawings. Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 79–87.

Light, P. H., & McEwen, F. (1987). Drawings as messages: The effect of a communicative game upon

production of view-specific drawings. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 53–60.

Light, P. H., & Nix, C. (1983). Own view versus good view in a perspective-taking task. Child

Development, 54, 480–483.

Light, P. H., & Simmons, B. (1983). The effects of a communication task upon the representation of depth

relationships in young children�s drawings. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35, 81–92.

Luquet, G. H. (1927). Le dessin enfantin. Paris: Alcan.

Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of

visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.

Moore, V. (1987). The influence of experience on children�s drawings of a familiar and unfamiliar object.

British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 221–229.

Phillips, W. A., Hobbs, S. B., & Pratt, F. R. (1978). Intellectual realism in children�s drawings of cubes.Cognition, 6, 15–33.


Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child�s conception of space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Picard, D., & Vinter, A. (1999). Representational flexibility in children�s drawings: Effects of age and

verbal instructions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 605–622.

Taylor, M., & Bacharach, V. R. (1982). Constraints on the visual accuracy of drawings produced by young

children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34, 311–329.

van Sommers, P. (1984). Drawing and cognition: Descriptive and experimental studies of graphic production

processes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Vinter, A. (1999). How meaning modifies drawing behaviour in children. Child Development, 70, 33–49.

Williats, J. (1985). Drawing systems revisited: The role of denotation systems in children�s figure drawings.In N. H. Freeman & M. V. Cox (Eds.), Visual order: The nature and development of pictorial

representation (pp. 78–99). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Are young children’s drawings canonically biased?

Documents

Transcript of Are young children’s drawings canonically biased?