The relationship between three anxiety related clusters in projective drawings and anxiety and ego-strength scales of the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory-2

Abstract

Based on the shortcomings of past research, the need for understanding and investigation of the general relationship between self-report measures and human figure drawings required understanding and investigation (Riethmiller & Handler, 1997b; Waehler, 1997) while utilising a quantitative, configural scoring approach. Riethmiller and Handler (1997a; 1997b) hypothesised that subjects have one of two typical approach styles to anxiety/stress that influences their execution of the Human Figure Drawing (HFD) Test: “Avoidance” or “Coping” as measured by composite scoring index clusters. They argue that these two approach styles had to be taken into account when investigating anxiety on the HFD Test. According to Handler and Reyher (1965) those who experience more intense anxiety typically rely on an “Avoidant” approach, while those with lower anxiety typically rely on a “Coping” approach. The “Coping” response is hypothesised to suggest good ego-strength, and the “Avoidant” response poor ego-strength. Handler and Reyher (1964; 1965; 1966) also argued that there are two sources of anxiety on projective drawings: internal and external sources of anxiety. They hypothesised that the “External” anxiety cluster (measured by utilising the car drawing) and self-report measures both assess ‘external’ anxiety. Using Handler’s (1967) HFD index scoring manual, this research therefore inve stigated the level of correlation of the two MMPI-2 anxiety scale scores with (a) the hypothesised Stress Approach HFD cluster scores, as well as with (b) the “External” anxiety cluster score, while the hypothesised Stress Approach HFD cluster scores were compared with the (c) MMPI-2 ego strength scale score. The results of the investigated relationships yielded non-significant correlations overall. The differences in nature of the two measurement instruments, and the potential weaknesses of this study, as two likely explanations for these correlations, are discussed. In the consideration of the differences of the two measurement instruments, the weaknesses of SR measures and criterion-related validity are discussed while self- attributed and implicit motives are contrasted with each other. Potential extraneous variables and possible truncated range are discussed as potential weaknesses of this study