Dev- Drawing

?
  • Created by: freya_bc
  • Created on: 20-04-17 09:59
Thouless (1931)
exagg circularity when adults draw dinner plate, even though further away it is the more elliptical it looks still confirmation bias contamination of what they know it to look like
1 of 33
Taylor and Mitchell (1997)
replication- reproduced slanted disc using PC, exagg common even when disc in darkened chamber with all perspective cues removed- knowledge that shape was circle sufficient way to axagg circulatrity, control- look into chamber swap ellipse without
2 of 33
cont
realising shape was a circle, judgements of shape were accurate TSST general inclin exag circ
3 of 33
Mitchell and Taylor (1999)
3-7yo younger children exagg circularity more than older, but only when knew ellipse arose from slanted circle. If new was ellipse it was judged acc- preconceptions prime and guide perception- prioir exp to determine character of preconceop- innate
4 of 33
Ropar and Mitchell (2002)
learned knowledge doesnt impact everyone to same extent- autistic pp est shape of slanted ci
5 of 33
Intraub (1990)
memory distorts what we look at, shown photo remove draw, uncrop/confabulate when draw, natural form to draw object completely, if shown line drawing, again draw more zoomed out, include info from beyond boundary, systematic error
6 of 33
Cohen and Bennett (!997)
portrait and industrial painting, one condition did a tracing,when draw carcicatured faces and over exagg of angles that would be 90d in real life but not on page- stereotyped images
7 of 33
Mitchell, Ropar, Ackroyd and Rajendran (2005)
drawn 2 dif versions of shepard illusion- strength of illusion from 3D cues suggest viewing from an oblique perspective, pp represent how it will look from an optimal vantage point, image contrast how something looks as its true shape, would draw one
8 of 33
cont
more square, properties of shape are viewer dependent
9 of 33
Lucquet (1920)
intellectual realism- phenomenon of children drawing what they know rather than what they see
10 of 33
Freeman and Janikoun (1972)
draw what exists in picture rather than what actually see, below 7yo drew handle but not flower, severe ir, older children did opposite the correct response, draw cup exactly how see to them with flower on it- ir bound by defining objects
11 of 33
Piaget and Inhelder (1969)
link between ir and drawings and childrens tendency to choose their own view in 3m task- failure to recog multiple perspectives ir arises from general egoc
12 of 33
Bremner and Moore (1984)
only children below 7 who saw handle included it in their drawing, 2 groups one walked all wya round, others sat down and never saw handle, only those who knew there was one drew it, IR relative to their knowledge
13 of 33
Crook (1984)
skewer apple with knitting needle, draw straight line through uninterrupted. IR- drawing something cannot see, maybe too difficult to do otherwise, control- broken needle put either side but 5yo could draw this
14 of 33
Light and MacIntosh (1980)
below 7yp, glass beaker with house inside or house behind beaker, but drew beaker side by side- showed separated by space, capturing spatial rel
15 of 33
Light and Humphreys (1981)
red and green pigs on table, children 5-6yo draw 4 pigs, one from each side of table, two cases one pig partly hidden by other, but always drew in full view- depict space, captured rel accur when drew g and r pig
16 of 33
David (1983)
portrayl of relationships between objects powerful to override desire to depict correct ID. 4-7yo cups one with handle in view, more likely to correctly exclude handle when not in view, compared to condition where asked to draw one cup with handle ..
17 of 33
cont
...not in view. Exclude handle of one cup when drawing pair bc best way to disting rel C: effectively assign higher order priority to depicting this relationship than depicting a cup as a cup by inc handle
18 of 33
Light and Simmons (1983)
red and blue ball side by side on tbale, child sit any of 4 sides, had to draw so next child would know where they sat, 6yo drew side by side even if witnessed child going to wrong place if sat somewhere could only see one, IR reflection of child try
19 of 33
cont
ing to understand how world really is
20 of 33
Reith and Dominin (1997)
da vinci window, two balls one close one distant first ball partly occluding distant one, cut outs onto window to hide shape of more distant ball , to do have to understand crescent shape- tended to choose complete circle or one fatter than approp-
21 of 33
cont
systematice error even thouh beyond more severe errors of ir - even some oldest children put two balls side by side, knowledge of what they are looking at contaminating their judgement
22 of 33
Sheppard et al., (2005)
20 7yo and 20 9yo copied 16 line drawings, 4 sets of 4 conditions- meaningfulness and dimensionality
23 of 33
Moore (1987)
assessed via number of errors per line, what causes intel realism- errors due to dimensionality true for children 7-9yo degree of errors more severe in younger children , errors due to vantage point- distorted toward viewer indep properties
24 of 33
Goodnow (1977)
tadpole figures
25 of 33
Thomas et al., (1989)
7yo nice man drawn bigger than nasty, create drawing stim has emotioanl value
26 of 33
Thomas and Silk (1990)
if scared of withces drew smaller than those who werent, power depicted larger
27 of 33
Soley and Haugh (1958)
got to draw santa - bigger picture closer to christmas
28 of 33
Freeman (1980)
explained more detailed so need bigger picture to fit it all in
29 of 33
Fox
becomes more prominent in their mind, naturally scales up drawing
30 of 33
Result of Soley and Haugh (1958)
after christmas santa images got smaller again depsite more info post christmas- saliency that counts
31 of 33
Axia et al., (1998)
map of Europe by a Scottish 10yo- reflected in geographical drawings, change depending on where they live, 8-10yo fish eye lens effect regions near by depicted in scale and detials, other countries scaled down as a function of distance
32 of 33
Goodwin (1982)
19 children 5-16yo young children 5-12yo drawing informative 7 judged as abused 6 drew penises, homosexuality= womens clothes, beating= baseball bat, sx= lots of heads for voices
33 of 33

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Taylor and Mitchell (1997)

Back

replication- reproduced slanted disc using PC, exagg common even when disc in darkened chamber with all perspective cues removed- knowledge that shape was circle sufficient way to axagg circulatrity, control- look into chamber swap ellipse without

Card 3

Front

cont

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Mitchell and Taylor (1999)

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Ropar and Mitchell (2002)

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Perception in Drawing resources »