=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1419/paper0063
|storemode=property
|title=Drawing a Dog: Cognitive Underpinnings
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0063.pdf
|volume=Vol-1419
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eapcogsci/PanesiRM15
}}
==Drawing a Dog: Cognitive Underpinnings==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0063.pdf
Drawing a Dog: Cognitive Underpinnings
Sabrina Panesi (sabrina.panesi@edu.unige.it)
Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione, corso A.Podestà 2
Genova, Italia
Sergio Rivara (sergio-rivara@hotmail.it)
Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione, corso A.Podestà 2
Genova, Italia
Sergio Morra (morra@nous.unige.it)
Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione, corso A.Podestà 2
Genova, Italia
Abstract (Dennis, 1992; Morra, 2008a, 2008b) and inhibitory control
(Riggs et al., 2013) in children’s drawing development.
This study investigated preschoolers’ drawing flexibility,
operationalized as their ability to draw a dog that is different Although human figure drawing was widely investigated,
from the human figure. The role of working memory (M fewer studies investigated the development of drawing
capacity) and executive function in drawing flexibility was animal figures (e.g., Lurçat, 1985). Silk and Thomas (1986)
examined. The participants were 123 children, 36-73 months suggested that young children (three to six years old) may
old. Regression analyses showed that both M capacity and acquire the graphic scheme for a dog by differentiation from
executive function predicted development in dog drawing; the the human figure; Golomb (1992) provided converging
dog drawing score correlated with M capacity and executive
function even partialling out age, motor coordination, and
evidence from young children’s drawings of other animals.
drawing ability (measured with Goodenough’s Draw-a-man Consistent with Silk and Thomas’s view, both Reith (1988)
test). These results suggest that both M capacity and and Morra (2005) found that school children’s drawings of a
executive function play an important role in the early kangaroo are highly affected by their habitual scheme for
development of drawing flexibility. the human figure.
Children’s ability to modify their habitual drawing
Keywords: drawing flexibility; working memory capacity; schemes is often referred to as “drawing flexibility”. This
executive function; preschoolers term is related to the more general concept of flexibility as
an ability not to follow in a rigid way an established routine
or scheme. If drawing schemes for animals are initially
Introduction differentiated from the human figure scheme, then
explaining children’s creation of new schemes to draw
animals can be regarded an important achievement in the
How is the development of drawing ability related to the field of drawing flexibility.
general development of the cognitive system during Explaining drawing flexibility is a controversial matter,
childhood? Children’s human figure drawing has been however. An early account was proposed by Karmiloff-
studied extensively (e.g., Goodenough, 1926; see also Cox Smith (1990), in the context of her Representational
& Parkin, 1986; Freeman, 1980; Lange-Küttner, Kerzmann Redescription theory. Karmiloff-Smith (1990) suggested
& Heckhausen, 2002). During an early stage of drawing that preschoolers are constrained by procedural rigidity, i.e.,
development, children typically use a single shape to they do not have access to their drawing procedures and
represent both head and trunk and often include only a therefore they are not able to interrupt a habitual drawing
single pair of limbs. By the time children finish preschool, procedure to make a novel drawing. Subsequent research
they begin to differentiate the head from the trunk and to (Berti & Freeman, 1997; Spensley & Taylor, 1999;
depict both arms and legs (Willcock, Imuta & Hayne, 2011). Spensley, 2001; Barlow, Jolley, White & Galbraith, 2003),
In the pre-school years drawing skill develops markedly; however, reported evidence that falsified Karmiloff-Smith’s
some studies investigated the cognitive mechanisms which account, because preschoolers seem to have access to their
permit the development of representational drawing, drawing procedures. In particular, these studies showed that
specifying the role of developing graphic and cognitive young children (a) can insert novel items midway through a
skills (Freeman, 1980; Freeman & Adi-Japha, 2008; Jolley, drawing procedure, and (b) are able to produce a flexible
2008; Riggs, Jolley & Simpson, 2013). However, only a few drawing if the instructions and materials make it clear to
studies focused on the relationships between the general them what type of modification is required. Karmiloff-
development of the human cognitive system and drawing Smith (1999), in a reply to Spensley and Taylor (1999),
development, suggesting a role of working memory capacity acknowledged that young children’s drawing procedures are
not so rigid as she initially hypothesized.
395
A different account of drawing flexibility was proposed distinguished from broadly understood executive control
by Morra (2005, 2008a), in the framework of neo-Piagetian (Wiebe, Scheffield, Nelson, Clark, Chevalier & Epsy, 2011;
theory (e.g., Pascual-Leone & Johnson, 2005). This Miller, Giesbrecht, Muller, McInerney & Kerns, 2012; Usai,
approach maintains that working memory growth has a Viterbori, Traverso & De Franchis, 2013).Therefore, we
central role in cognitive development, and in particular, its used three working memory tests, widely used in neo-
capacity can set an upper limit to drawing performance. In Piagetian research as measures of M capacity, and a battery
this theoretical framework, attentional capacity (or M of four executive function tests (two of which tap inhibition,
capacity) is considered as the core of working memory; the one updating, and one shifting), leaving to preliminary
term “M capacity” indicates the maximum number of analyses the decision on whether inhibition as a basic,
schemes that a person can simultaneously activate with general resource can be measured separately. Finally, we
central attentional resources (Pascual-Leone, 1987). also used a motor coordination test as a control measure.
Morra (2005) hypothesized that working memory is
essential in drawing flexibility, because the child must keep Method
in mind, in addition to a habitual scheme, its feature(s) that
must be modified and the graphic devices that could Participants
represent those modifications. Specifically, Morra (2005)
The participants were 123 children, from 36 to 73 months
examined the role of M capacity in drawing flexibility, with
old (M = 53.1 months, SD = 9.6 months). There were 58
children in the age range from kindergarten to grade 3. Two
experiments concerned drawing a human figure in girls and 65 boys, recruited in pre-schools in Genova and
movement, and a third experiment required creating a novel Rapallo (Italy). Parents provided informed consent for
scheme for drawing an unfamiliar animal (a kangaroo). The participation.
results showed that, in this age range, working memory
capacity was highly relevant both to modify the human
Materials and Procedure
figure scheme to represent specific movements, and to Drawing tasks
differentiate a kangaroo from the human figure. Goodenough’s Draw-A-Man (Goodenough, 1926; Harris,
A third relevant view was proposed by Barlow et al. 1963). The experimenter gave the child a white A4 sheet
(2003), who suggested that young children are probably and a pencil, and invited the child to draw a man.
rigid in encoding information that would lead to cognitive Instructions and scores were given according to the manual.
overload if dealt with consciously, but a quantitative Dog Drawing Task. The experimenter gave the child a white
increase in general information processing ability could A4 sheet and a pencil, and invited the child to draw a dog.
enable the child to make a qualitative change in the way of The details of scoring are presented below.
coping with that information. More particularly, they
suggested that executive function development may aid the Motor coordination
development of drawing flexibility (in line with the views TPV- subtest coordination eye-hand (Hammill, Pearson, &
on executive function development proposed by Zelazo & Voress, 1994). This task assesses motor coordination. The
Frye, 1997). In line with this view, Riggs et al. (2013) experimenter invited the child to trace with the pencil a
showed a role of one executive function (i.e., inhibition) in standard set of routes.
drawing development.
This study has the general goal of investigating drawing Working memory tests
flexibility in young children’s ability to draw a dog that is Mr. Cucumber test (Case, 1985). The outline of an
different from the human figure. More particularly, the first extraterrestrial figure, to which colored stickers had been
goal of this study is to create a scoring system for the dog attached, was displayed for 5 sec per item. There were three
drawing task adequate for preschoolers. The second goal is items at each level from 1 to 8 stickers. The child must then
to examine the role of M capacity and executive function in show, on an outline without colored stickers, the positions
early drawing flexibility. of the stickers. The test was discontinued when a child
Our second goal, however, poses a problem of choice of failed all three items at a level. One point was given for each
models and measures for executive functions. Miyake, consecutive level on which a subject got at least two items
Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, Howerter & Wager (2000) correct, and one-third of a point for each correct item above
found that, in adults, inhibition, working memory updating, that level.
and attention shifting are correlated but distinguishable Backward Word Span (Morra, 1994). The child was
processes. Im-Bolter, Johnson & Pascual-Leone (2006) required to repeat lists of words backward. There were three
proposed that M capacity and inhibition are general lists at each level from 2 to 7 words. The test was
resources, whereas shifting and updating are executive discontinued when a child failed all three lists at one level.
abilities that partly rely on M capacity and inhibition. This One point was given for each consecutive level on which a
model, however, was tested on school children. The subject got at least two items correct (including level 1
structure of executive functions in preschoolers is widely which cannot exist, because it is not possible to reverse the
debated, and it is still unclear at which age inhibition can be order of a list made of a single word, and therefore is
396
granted as correct by default), and one-third of a point for Puppets Updating Task. This is a novel task designed for
each correct item above that level. this study; it assesses the constant monitoring and rapid
Direction Following Task (DFT, Cunning, 2003; Pascual- addition or deletion of working memory contents. On each
Leone & Johnson, 2005). This task requires children to item, the child was shown three, four or five puppets that
follow oral directions of increasing complexity. We the experimenter placed sequentially in a cardboard house;
modified it for preschoolers, using tokens of different then, the child must recall the last two puppets placed in the
shapes (bike and boat), colors (white, yellow, green, blue house. There were 9 items, each of which was scored 1
and red) and size (large and small), to be placed in boxes of point if the child recalled correctly one puppet, and 2 points
different color and size. We only presented items in the if the child recalled two puppets (possible range of scores,
form “put X in Y” (i.e., the three simplest levels of 0-18).
complexity of the test). There were five items at each level.
The scoring rules for the Italian version of the test were Scoring of the Dog Drawing
followed (see Morra, Camba, Calvini & Bracco, 2013). For the dog drawing task, a list of 13 features was prepared.
This scoring was devised so that drawing flexibility could
Executive function tasks be scored as independently as possible from general
Day/Night Stroop (Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994). This drawing development; i.e., only features in which the dog
task assesses the ability to inhibit a prepotent verbal drawing was different from that of a person were
response and to activate an alternative verbal response. considered. These features are listed in Table 1. One point
Children were instructed that in this game they had to say was awarded for each feature (except feature 4 that was
“night” to a white card with a yellow sun drawing, and scored 1 point in case 4a and half point in case 4b). Figure 1
“day” to a black card with a moon and stars on it. There presents an example of scoring.
were 16 test trials; accuracy was scored (range 0-16).
Bear/Dragon (Reed, Pien, & Rothbarth, 1984). This task
assesses the ability to inhibit or activate a motor response
following a rule, in a way similar to a go-no-go task. The
experimenter introduced children to a “nice” bear puppet
and a “naughty” dragon puppet, and explained that in this
game they had to do what the bear told them to do (e.g.,
touch your nose) but not to do what the dragon said. There
were 10 test trials, with bear and dragon commands in
alternating order. The no-go trials were scored as follows: 0 Figure 1: Example of drawing, by a 57-month-old child.
points for performing the movement commanded by the Numbers refer to the features listed in Table 1.
dragon; 1 point for a partial movement or response; 2 points
for performing a different movement from that commanded Table 1: Features considered in scoring and their proportion
by the dragon; 3 points for no movement at all. The possible of occurrence
scores for the no-go trials range from 0 to 15.
Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS, Zelazo, 2006). This Feature Proportion
is a complex response inhibition task. The DCCS creates a 1. Whole dog's figure length > height .43
prepotent response during the pre-switch phase that must 2. Head connected to body along the
later be inhibited. The child was shown a deck of cards that horizontal axis .47
varied on two dimensions – shape (rabbit versus boat) and
color (red versus blue). During the pre-switch phase, the 3. Pointed or elongated face .16
child must sort the card according to shape dimension. In 4a. Face details (nose at the end of the
the post-switch phase, the child was asked to sort the card head) .05
according to color dimension. In the third sorting phase 4b. Face details (cat/bunny face; or
(border phase), the experimenter explained that if there was mouth farther than eyes from the trunk) .06
a black border on a card, then the child must sort according 5. Pointed or hanging ears .28
to shape, and if there was not, according to colour. There 6. Whiskers .01
were 6 trials in the pre-switch phase, 6 in the post-switch
7. Tongue extending out of mouth .03
phase, and 12 in the border phase. The pre-switch and post-
switch phases were scored 1 point if at least 5 responses out 8. Trunk length > height .45
of 6 are correct, and the border phase was scored 1 point if 9. Hair on body/legs .09
at least 9 out of 12 are correct.1
10. Four vertical legs .17
11. Paws (with animal shape) .05
1
Binary scores for each phase were used, instead of the number 12. Tail .40
of correct responses, because this strict scoring criterion is less 13. Dog objects (collar, leash, or muzzle) .02
vulnerable to the child’s random placing of cards in either box.
397
Results scores in the latter three tests. Note that M capacity is
conceived as a general, attentional resource at the core of
All dog drawings were scored by a second rater. Table 2 working memory capacity, and therefore the finding of a
presents the reliability (proportion of inter-rater agreement factor that loads both verbal and visuo-spatial tasks is fully
and Cohen’s kappa) of each single feature scored in the dog consistent with the theoretical assumptions.
drawing task. The proportion of inter-rater agreement on
each single feature ranged .89 to 1 (mdn = .97); Cohen’s Table 3: Descriptive Statistics
Kappa ranged .49 to 1 (mdn = .87), and all of them were
Std.
significant with p<.001. Cronbach’s alpha was .77, and the N Mean Dev. Min Max
correlation between the total scores given by the two raters
Drawing Tasks
was r(121) = .96, p<.001. Thus, all reliability indexes were
good. Goodenough’s Draw-A-Man 123 9.87 6.29 0 28
Table 2: Inter-rater reliability Dog Drawing Task 123 2.64 2.46 0 7
Motor coordination
proportion of Cohen's p of Tpv - subtest eye-hand
inter-rater Kappa Cohen's coordination 122 113.5 32.98 28 172
agreement Kappa
1. Whole dog's figure length > M capacity tests
height .89 .79 <.001
Mr. Cucumber Test 120 1.59 .79 0 4
2. Head connected to body along
horizontal axis .94 .87 <.001 Backward Word Span 120 1.66 .74 1 3.66
3. Pointed or elongated face .97 .88 <.001 Direction Following Task 122 1.54 1.06 0 3.5
4. Face details .58 <.001 Executive Function Tasks
4a. Face details (nose at the end
of the head) .98 Night/Day Stroop 122 10.48 4.48 0 16
4b. Face details (cat/bunny face; Bear/Dragon no go 120 9.01 6.47 0 15
or mouth farther than eyes from
the trunk) .95 DCCS 120 2 .43 1 3
5. Pointed or hanging ears .93 .82 <.001 Puppets Updating 120 11.63 3.08 2 18
6. Whiskers 1 1 <.001
7. Tongue extending out of
mouth .99 .89 <.001 The dog drawing scores increased with age, r(121) = .77,
p<.001. The correlation between working memory capacity
8. Trunk length>height .97 .93 <.001
and the dog drawing score was highly significant, r(117)
9. Hair on body/legs .96 .72 <.001 =.73, p<.001, also with age partialled out, r(116) = .33,
10. Four vertical legs .98 .91 <.001 p<.001. The correlation between executive function and the
11. Paws .98 .79 <.001
dog drawing score was also highly significant, r(114) = .65,
p<.001, also with age partialled out, r(113) = .29, p = .002.
12. Tail .95 .90 <.001 The dog drawing also correlated with the Goodenough
13. Dog's objects (collar, leash,
or muzzle) .98 .49 <.001 Draw-a-man test r(121) = .69, p<.001, also with age
partialled out, r(120) = .26, p = .002, and with motor
coordination r(120) = .53, p<.001, but this correlation didn't
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics.2 A factor analysis resist partialling out age.
of the working memory and executive function tests (with A stepwise regression analysis of the dog drawing scores,
principal axis extraction and varimax rotation) found two with M capacity, executive function, motor coordination,
factors. The Backward Word Span, DFT, and Mr.Cucumber and the draw-a-man scores as predictors, yielded significant
Test loaded higher on the first factor (.93, .49, and .47, results for M capacity (Beta = .40, p<.001), Draw-a-man
respectively), while the Bear/Dragon, the Day/Night Stroop, (Beta = .31, p<.001), and executive function (Beta = .18,
and the Puppets Updating loaded higher on the second p<.03), thus accounting for 62.8% variance overall.
factor (.65, .63, and .63, respectively). The DCCS did not Another regression analysis was run, in which age was
load highly on any factor, probably because of lack of entered first, accounting for 60.0% of the dog drawing
variance in this sample. Therefore, we defined an M scores; M capacity, executive function, motor coordination,
Capacity variable as the mean of the first three tests, and an and the draw-a-man scores were entered subsequently, with
executive function variable as a weighted mean of the z a stepwise method. This analysis showed that both M
capacity and executive function contributed significantly to
2 the dog drawing scores, accounting together for another
A few children did not perform all tasks; N=123 in the
analyses that only consider the drawing task, whereas in
5.8% variance above and beyond age. In the final equation,
correlation and regression analyses we only considered the the significant predictors were age (Beta = .46, p<.001), M
children who contributed all relevant data points.
398
capacity (Beta = .26, p<.01), and executive function (Beta = figure, and monitor the ongoing process to optimize changes
.17, p<.04). in the habitual scheme (Barlow et al., 2003). Therefore,
Finally, when age, motor coordination, and the working memory and executive functions are likely to work
Goodenough Draw-a-man were all partialled out, the dog in synergy when the child is engaged in differentiating a
drawing scores still correlated significantly with both M new graphic scheme.
capacity, r(109) = .30, p<.001, and executive function,
r(109) = .26, p<.01. References
Discussion Barlow, C. M., Jolley, R. P., White, D. G., & Galbraith, D.
(2003). Rigidity in children's drawings and its
This study investigated preschoolers’ ability to draw a dog relation with representational change. Journal of
that is different from the human figure. This ability can be Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 124-152.
regarded as an early form of drawing flexibility. To measure Berti, A., & Freeman, N. (1997). Representational change in
drawing flexibility independently of general drawing resources for pictorial innovation: A three-
development, we created a scoring system for the dog component analysis. Cognitive Development, 12,
drawing that only includes features that differentiate the dog 501-522.
from the human figure. All the reliability indexes of this Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to
scale were very good. Children's ability to differentiate the adulthood. Orlando: Academic Press.
animal graphic scheme from the human increased linearly Cox, M. V., & Parkin, C. E. (1986). Young children's
with age. human figure drawing: cross-sectional and
The role of M capacity and executive function in early longitudinal studies. Educational Psychology, 6,
drawing flexibility was examined. Evidence for a role of M 275-287.
capacity in drawing flexibility at an older age was reported Cunning, S. A. (2003). The direction-following task:
by Morra (2005). A role of executive function was Assessing mental capacity in the linguistic domain.
suggested by Barlow et al. (2003) as a possible explanation Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Toronto: York
of their results, which were inconsistent with the predictions University.
from Karmiloff-Smith (1990). In this study, regression Dennis, S. (1992). Stage and structure in the development of
analyses showed that both M capacity and executive children's spatial representations. In R. Case (Ed.),
function predicted the dog drawing score, M capacity being The mind's staircase (pp. 229-245). Hillsdale, NJ:
the best predictor. Also drawing ability (as measured by Erlbaum.
Goodenough’s Draw-a-man test) was another predictor of Freeman, N. (1980). Strategies of representation in young
the dog drawing scale; however, when age was entered first children. London: Academic Press.
in the regression analysis, the Goodenough score Freeman, N. H., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Pictorial intention,
disappeared from the equation, and only M capacity and action and interpretation. In C. Lange-Küttner, &
executive function accounted for a significant proportion of A. Vinter (Eds.), Drawing and the Non-Verbal
variance beyond that accounted for by age. Finally, both M Mind: A Life-Span Perspective (pp. 104-120).
capacity and executive function correlated significantly with Cambridge: University Press.
the dog drawing scale even when age, motor coordination, Gerstadt, C., Hong, I., & Diamond, A. (1994). The
and human figure drawing were partialled out. These relationship between cognition and action:
findings strongly support the views of both Barlow et al. performance of children 3 1/2-7 years old on a
(2003; see also Riggs et al., 2013) and Morra (2005, 2008). Stroop-like day-night test. Cognition, 53, 129-153.
It seems interesting to note that both M capacity and Golomb, C. (1992). The child's creation of a pictorial
executive function accounted for a specific, significant world. Berkeley, CA: Universitiy of California
proportion of variance in the dog drawing scale; the Press.
contribution of one of them could not be explained away by Goodenough, F. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by
the other. This suggests that the process of creating a drawings. Chicago: World Book.
graphic scheme for the dog involves, in addition to a Hammill, D. D., Pearson, N. A., & Voress, J. K. (1994).
scheme for the human figure (Silk & Thomas, 1986), also Test TPV - Percezione visiva e integrazione visuo-
these two general-purpose components of the child’s motoria. Trento: Erickson.
cognitive system. M capacity is likely to be involved Harris, D. B. (1963). Children's drawings as measures of
because the child needs to activate, in addition to the intellectual maturity. New York: Harcourt, Brace
habitual graphic scheme for the human figure, also & World.
representations of relevant features of dogs, and operative Jolley, R. (2008). Children's understanding of the dual
schemes to create or modify graphic marks that could nature of pictures. In C. Lange-Küttner, & A.
represent these features (Morra, 2005). Executive functions Vinter (Eds.), Drawing and the Non-Verbal Mind:
are likely to be involved because, while drawing, the child A Life-Span Perspective (pp. 86-105). Cambridge:
must inhibit the habitual way of drawing of the human University Press.
399
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1990). Constraints on representational Reith, E. (1988). The development of use of contour lines in
change: Evidence from children's drawing. children's drawing of figurative and non-figurative
Cognition, 34, 57-83. three dimensional models. Archives de
Lange-Küttner C., Kerzmann A. & Heckhausen J. (2002). Psychologie, 56, 83-103.
The emergence of visually realistic contour in the Riggs, K., Jolley, R. P., & Simpson, A. (2013). The role of
drawing of the human figure. British Journal of inhibitory control in the development of human
Developmental Psychology, 20, 439-463. figure drawing in young children. Journal of
Lurçat, L. (1985). Réalisme et modèle interne: à propos du Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 537–542.
dessin d'enfant. [On realism and internal models in Silk, A. M., & Thomas, G. V. (1986). Development and
children’s drawings] Bullettin de Psychologie, 38, differentiation in children's figure drawings. British
231-241. Journal of Psychology, 77, 399-410.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N., Emerson, M., Witzki, A., Spensley, F., & Taylor, J. (1999). The development of
Howerter, A., & Wager, T. (2000). The unity and cognitive flexibility: evidence from children's
diversity of executive functions and their drawing. Human Development, 42, 300-324.
contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A Usai, M. C., Viterbori, P., Traverso, L., & De Franchis, V.
latent variabile analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, (2013). Latent structure of executive function in
49-100. five-and six-year-old children: a longitudinal study.
Miller, M. R., Giesbrecht, G. F., Muller, U., McInerney, R. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
J., & Kerns, K. A. (2012). A latent variable 1-16.
approach to determining the structure of executive Wiebe, S., Scheffield, T., Nelson, J. M., Clark, C. A.,
function in preschool children. Journal of cognition Chevalier, N., & Espy, K. (2011). The structure of
and development, 395-423. executive function in 3-year-olds. Journal of
Morra, S. (1994). Issues in Working Memory Measurement: Experimental Child Psychology, 436-452.
Testing for M Capacity. The International Society
for the Study of Behavioral Development, 17, 143- Willcock, E., Imuta, K., & Hayne, H. (2011). Children's
159. human figure drawing do not measure intellectual
Morra, S. (2005). Cognitive aspects og change in drawings: ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
A neo-Piagetian theoretical account. British 110, 444-452.
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 317- Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The dimansional change card sort
341. (DCCS): A method of assessing executive function
Morra, S. (2008a). Memory components and control in children. Nature Protocols, 1, 297-301.
processes in children's drawing. In C. Milbrath, & Zelazo, P. D., & Frye, D. (1997). Cognitive complexity and
H. M. Trautner (Eds.), Children's understanding control: A theory of the development of deliberate
and production of pictures, drawing and art (pp. reasoning and intentional action. In M. I. Stamenov
53-86). Göttingen (D): Hogrefe & Huber. (Ed.), Language structure, discourse and the
Morra, S. (2008b). Spatial structures in children's drawings: access to consciousness (p. 113-153). Amsterdam:
how do they develop? In C. Lange-Küttner, & A. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Vinter (Eds.), Drawing and the Non-Verbal Mind:
A Life-Span Perspective (pp. 159-194). Cambridge
(UK): Cambridge University Press.
Morra, S., Camba, R., Calvini, G., & Bracco, F. (2013).
Italians do it better? M-capacity measurement and
cross-linguistic differences in the direction
following task (DFT). Journal of Applied
Psycholinguistics, 13, 9-24.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1987). Organismic Processes for neo-
Piagetian theories: A dialectical causal account of
cognitive development. International Journal of
Psychology, 22, 531-570.
Pascual-Leone, J., & Johnson, J. (2005). A dialectical
constructivist view of developmental intelligence.
In O. Wilhelm, & R. Engle (Eds.), Handbook of
understanding and masuring intelligence (p. 177-
201). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reed, M., Pien, D., & Rothbart, M. (1984). Inhibitory self-
control in preschool children. Merrill-Palmer
Quartlerly, 30, 131-147.
400