This study examined the willingness of two diverse groups, 26 junvenile offenders (21 boys, 5 girls) and 26 first-semester college freshmen (12 men and 14 women) to draw on a personal computer. The purpose was to see whether there were differences in what they chose to draw, i.e., themselves (SELF), family (FAMILY), other (OTHER). The analyses indicated no significant differences between the groups in content of drawing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BloomA. J. (1985) An anxiety management approach to computerphobia. Training and Development Journal, January, 90–94.
2.
CanterD. S. (1989) Art therapy and computers. In WadesonH.DurkinJ.PerackD. (Eds.), Advances in art therapy. New York, NY: Wiley. Pp. 296–316.
3.
HammerE. F. (1980) Projection in the art studio. In HammerE. F. (Ed.), The clinical application of projective drawings. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Pp. 5–17.
4.
MaroldoG. K. (1989) Advantages of the computer in art psychotherapy. Paper presented at the 97th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA, August 15, 1989.
5.
NaumbergM. (1980) Art therapy: Its scope and function. In HammerE. F. (Ed.), The clinical application of projective drawings. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Pp. 511–561.
6.
SchwartzM. D. (1978) Why do psychiatrists avoid using the CRT?Computers in Psychiatry/Psychology, 1(4), 10.
7.
SheniakD. (1981) Art as therapy. School Arts, November, 53–55.
