Have you ever rummaged through a memory box and stumbled upon some kindergarten self-portraits? Your earliest depictions of the human form were probably peculiar, and by no means anatomically accurate. When most children begin drawing humans, their sketches consist of a round head and a pair of lines representing legs, but interestingly, the torso is almost always neglected (Figure 1) (Cox, 1993). These drawings are the subject of much curiosity for developmental psychologists, who have dubbed these figures “tadpoles”. Why do children first depict the human figure this way⁠—and did you once envision yourself as a simple head with limbs?

Ricci (1887) first proposed that tadpole-drawers do not depict people as they truly see them, but rather capture the features that they know are present in the human form. However, this cannot describe the whole picture, as tadpole-drawers can name and label an impressive range of anatomical features on human bodies and drawn figures (Brittain and Chien, 1983; Cox, 1993). Tadpole-drawers know that a person has a distinct torso, but this is rarely reflected in their sketches. 

Evidence suggests that an internal model acts as an intermediate between the child’s anatomical knowledge and the human representation they deliver on the page (Cox, 1993; Gibson, 1969; Luquet, 1913). An internal model is a simplified representation of an object⁠—like the human body⁠—that can easily be stored in memory. The original complex object undergoes an abstraction process which involves selecting essential features to be remembered. Tadpole-drawers likely abstract the head and legs because the head is the apparent centre of thought while the legs give the body its upright posture (Barnes, 1895; Ricci, 1887). Then, when a tadpole-drawer puts crayon to paper, they recall their abstracted internal model and draw only the selected features (Cox, 1993).

Young children may understand what a torso is and where it belongs but lack the ability to draw one. When asked to draw a human figure with a torso, tadpole-drawers frequently produce a squiggle or small circle between the head and legs (Karmiloff-Smith, 1990). In contrast, when asked to construct a human figure from pieces of paper cut into various shapes, some tadpole-drawers use a rectangle to represent a torso in the appropriate anatomical location (Bassett, 1977). Taken together, these results suggest that although tadpole-drawers understand anatomical components, the torso is too challenging and not important enough to portray in their illustrations.

Recent research explores culture’s influence on the tadpole’s features (Cox, 1993; Gernhardt, Rübeling and Keller, 2015; Rübeling et al., 2011). Evidence suggests that children draw tadpoles all around the world, so tadpoles likely represent a universal stage of human cognitive development. Even so, children from Western urbanized cultures frequently draw larger and taller tadpoles with more facial features than children from rural non-Western cultures (Gernhardt, Rübeling and Keller, 2015; Rübeling et al., 2011). Researchers think this variation reflects the tadpole-drawer’s developing self-conception as either an independent individual or an interdependent community member. These are generally consistent with the cultural roles of children in urbanized Western centres and non-Western traditional communities, respectively (Gernhardt, Rübeling and Keller, 2015; Rübeling et al., 2011). 

It remains challenging to confirm if this is the true source of cultural tadpole variation, making this a compelling avenue for current and future exploration. In the meantime, marvel at your own childhood masterpieces and consider what they reveal about your developing mind.

Works Cited

Barnes, E., 1895. The Art of Little Children. The Pedagogical Seminary, 3(2), pp.302–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/08919402.1895.10532947.

Bassett, E.M., 1977. Production Strategies in the Child’s Drawing of the Human Figure: Towards an Argument for a Model of Syncretic Perception. In: G. Butterworth, ed. The Child’s Representation of the World. Boston, MA: Springer US. pp.49–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2349-5_3.

Brittain, W.L. and Chien, Y.-C., 1983. Relationship between Preschool Children’s Ability to Name Body Parts and Their Ability to Construct a Man. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57(1), pp.19–24. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1983.57.1.19.

Cox, M.V., 1993. Children’s Drawings of the Human Figure. London: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203775707.

Gernhardt, A., Rübeling, H. and Keller, H., 2015. Cultural perspectives on children’s tadpole drawings: at the interface between representation and production. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00812.

Gibson, E. J.,1969. Principles of perceptual learning and development. [book] Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice-Hall.

Karmiloff-Smith, A., 1990. Constraints on representational change: Evidence from children’s drawing. Cognition, 34(1), pp.57–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90031-E.

Ricci, C., 1887. L’arte dei bambini. [book] Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli.

Rübeling, H., Keller, H., Yovsi, R.D., Lenk, M., Schwarzer, S. and Kühne, N., 2011. Children’s Drawings of the Self as an Expression of Cultural Conceptions of the Self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(3), pp.406–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110363475.

Luquet, G. H., 1913. Les dessins d’un enfant. [book] Paris: Alcan.