Art Therapy

Journal of the American Art Therapy Association

ISSN: 0742-1656 (Print) 2159-9394 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uart20

Reducing Negative Mood Through Drawing:

Comparing Venting, Positive Expression, and
Tracing

Kayla Smolarski, Kristy Leone & Steven J. Robbins

To cite this article: Kayla Smolarski, Kristy Leone & Steven J. Robbins (2015) Reducing Negative
Mood Through Drawing: Comparing Venting, Positive Expression, and Tracing, Art Therapy, 32:4,
197-201, DOI: 10.1080/07421656.2015.1092697

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07421656.2015.1092697

Published online: 13 Nov 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1487

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uart20
 Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 32(4) pp. 197–201, © AATA, Inc. 2015
brief report
Reducing Negative Mood Through Drawing: Comparing
Venting, Positive Expression, and Tracing
Kayla Smolarski, Kristy Leone, and Steven J. Robbins
Abstract
The authors examined whether instructions to express
emotional states represent an active ingredient in the mood-
enhancing properties of drawing. Forty-five undergraduates
were asked to make a list of recent stressful events (negative
mood induction) before being randomly assigned to one of three
conditions: drawing to express happiness (positive expression),
drawing to express current stress (venting), or tracing and
coloring a simple line drawing (distraction control). Mood
improved in all three conditions, but the positive expression
condition showed significantly greater improvement than either
the tracing or venting groups. Venting and tracing produced
similar levels of mood elevation. Positive emotional expression
appears to be an active ingredient in the beneficial effects of
drawing on mood.
Introduction
Numerous randomized controlled trials have docu-
mented the efficacy of drawing in improving mood (see
Slayton, D’Archer, & Kaplan, 2010, for a review). The evi-
dence supporting drawing as an intervention for negative
mood motivates a follow-up question: What are the “active
ingredients” underlying these effects? As Kapitan (2012)
discussed, art therapy research is ready to move beyond sim-
ple demonstrations of efficacy to consideration of specific
causal mechanisms. A number of different active ingre-
dients have been proposed for the effects of drawing. His-
torically, the expression of negative emotions through art
creation has been the most popular explanation—a “vent-
ing” or “catharsis” account (Chambala, 2008; Curl, 2008;
Kramer, 2000). However, the act of drawing may elevate
mood for a host of other reasons including the expression
of positive emotions to counteract negative ones (Abbott,
Shanahan, & Neufeld, 2013; Dalebroux, Goldstein, &
Editor’s Note: Kayla Smolarski and Kristy Leone are under-
graduate psychology majors and Steven J. Robbins is professor of
psychology at Arcadia University, Glenside, PA. Correspondence
concerning this article may be addressed to the third author at
robbinss@arcadia.edu
197
Winner, 2008; Wilkinson & Chilton, 2013), the viewing
of aesthetically pleasing images (Abbott et al., 2013; Bell &
Robbins, 2007), the distracting effects of manual manipula-
tion and focused attention (Abbott et al., 2013), the mean-
ingful act of creation (Abbott et al., 2013), or the
distraction produced through expression of either positive
or neutral emotions (Drake, Coleman, & Winner, 2011;
Drake & Winner, 2012).
A number of studies have begun exploring this ques-
tion. For example, De Petrillo and Winner (2005) found
that drawing enhanced mood more than copying geomet-
ric shapes or completing word puzzles. Thus, the effect of
drawing results from more than simple motor movements
or focused attention. Bell and Robbins (2007) examined
whether art production represents part of the active ingre-
dient in mood enhancement by comparing the effects of
drawing with the viewing of art prints. The drawing con-
dition showed significantly greater reductions in negative
mood. Unfortunately, neither Boothby and Robbins
(2011) nor Abbott et al. (2013) were able to replicate this
difference between producing and viewing art.
More recently, the role of different forms of mood
expression in drawing has received attention. Curl
(2008) compared groups asked to express either positive
or negative emotions through drawing or collage mak-
ing. The form of art making was unrelated to outcome,
but individuals asked to express positive emotions
showed reductions in stress, whereas those assigned to
negative expression showed increased stress levels. In a
similar study, Dalebroux et al. (2008) found that an
induced negative mood was better remediated by draw-
ing to express happiness compared to drawing to express
sad feelings or crossing out symbols on a page. Drake
and Winner (2012) showed that a purportedly neutral
drawing task (“draw a house”) produced more mood ele-
vation than either venting (“draw something from the
film”) or the simple passage of time. They intended the
draw-a-house task to represent a “distraction” condition,
but as they noted in their discussion, drawing a house
could involve positive emotional expression as well.
Several other studies suggest that distraction is no bet-
ter than venting in reducing negative mood. Pizarro (2004)
compared undergraduates assigned to draw a picture repre-
senting a traumatic experience with those asked to draw a
198 DRAWING AND NEGATIVE MOOD
still life. There were no mood differences between condi-
tions. Henderson, Rosen, and Mascaro (2007) similarly
found that individuals screened for trauma symptoms and
asked to draw a specific object showed equivalent changes
in mood compared to those instructed to express negative
mood states. In a study comparing participants assigned
to color in a square or circular outline, Babouchkina and
Robbins (2015) found greater mood enhancement in the
circular (mandala) condition, but no significant interaction
with instructions (express negative feelings versus no
instructions).
Taken as a whole, the studies just reviewed point to
positive emotional expression as an important ingredient in
the mood enhancement produced by drawing. Recently,
much attention has been drawn to the importance of repli-
cation in establishing robust phenomena in psychology
(Klein et al., 2014; Open Science Collaboration, 2012).
Consequently, the present study was designed first with the
goal of replicating the findings of Curl (2008) and Dale-
broux et al. (2008) showing that positive mood expression
is superior to venting. We wished to see if we could produce
the same outcome in our specific population of undergradu-
ates, using different methods of negative mood induction
and assessment.
We also wished to expand on these initial findings by
providing a more direct comparison of positive expression
and distraction as potential “active ingredients” in mood
enhancement. As Drake et al. (2011) and Drake and Winner
(2012) discussed, expression of positive emotions might
enhance mood through simple distraction rather than
through the replacement or canceling out of one mood state
by another. Dalebroux et al. (2008) attempted to separate
these two possibilities by comparing a positive expression
drawing condition with a group asked to identify and cross
out specific symbols printed on a page. However, the symbol
identification task appears to differ from drawing in multiple
ways, including the lack of an actual drawing or coloring
component and the possible induction of stress through a
test-like procedure (participants could worry about possible
errors in their performance, misses or false alarms). Thus, the
conclusion that drawing for positive expression is superior to
drawing for distraction is not yet warranted.
We attempted in the present study to create a more
drawing-like distraction condition by asking one group
of participants to trace a simple line drawing and then
color in their traced outline. We chose tracing and col-
oring rather than drawing under “neutral” instructions,
such as the “draw a house” instructions used by Drake
and Winner (2012), because we thought that any free
drawing task could involve positive or negative mood
expression. Tracing and coloring appeared to be a task
that involved the motor demands of free drawing and
the same exposure to a potentially pleasing outcome
drawing, but with less potential for the induction or dis-
charge of personal emotional states.
More specifically, we compared the effects of three
drawing conditions following negative mood induction:
expression of negative feeling (venting), expression of hap-
piness (positive expression), and a distraction task (tracing).
Forty-five undergraduate participants were asked to make a
short list of personal stressors before being randomly
assigned to the venting condition (“draw your current feel-
ings”), the positive expression condition (“draw something
that makes you happy”), or the distraction condition (trac-
ing and coloring in a simple line drawing of a sailboat). We
hypothesized that those in the positive expression condition
would experience greater mood improvement compared to
venting or distraction.
Method
Participants
Forty-five undergraduate students at Arcadia Univer-
sity in Glenside, Pennsylvania, between the ages of 18 and
22 served as participants (17 men, 28 women). Recruit-
ment took place through the Sona Systems web-based
scheduling system (www.sona-systems.com) or through
word-of-mouth recruitment by the experimenters. Partici-
pants received course credit when appropriate; no other
incentives were offered. We were not able to screen partici-
pants for diagnosed emotional disorders because no licensed
clinicians were available. However, no individual voluntar-
ily revealed to us that they suffered from a mental health
condition.
Materials
Mood assessment occurred through administration of
the Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire (McNair,
Lorr, & Droppleman, 1971). The POMS consists of 65
mood-related adjectives; participants indicate their current
level of each state on a 5-point Likert scale. Individual items
can be combined into six subscales termed Anger, Fatigue,
Confusion, Tension, Depression, and Vigor. Adding the
first five scores and subtracting the Vigor score produces an
overall negative mood score. That score served as the out-
come measure in this study.
Procedure
All individuals enrolled in the study participated in a
single laboratory session lasting approximately 30 minutes.
Participants were seen individually; each session took place
in a small research room containing a table and two chairs.
Participants provided informed, written consent before tak-
ing the first POMS questionnaire (baseline). They were
informed that the study was intended to explore the impact
of drawing on mood; however, they were not informed as
to the specific conditions manipulated across groups. Thus,
participants were kept blind to their group assignment.
Next, individuals were asked to make a list of three stressful
events currently on their mind (we did not collect the lists).
We intended to create an elevated level of negative mood
 SMOLARSKI / LEONE / ROBBINS
against which the impact of the drawing conditions could
be assessed. A second POMS questionnaire (pre-treatment)
was then administered to document that groups showed
comparable increases in negative mood prior to the treat-
ment phase of the study.
Based on a preconstructed blocked randomization
table, participants were then given their drawing instruc-
tions in a sealed envelope. Fifteen participants were assigned
to each of the three conditions. The experimenter handed
an envelope to each participant and instructed the person
to (a) read the instructions on the first page, (b) copy the
instructions onto one side of an included blank sheet of
paper (as a manipulation check to show that the instruc-
tions were read), and (c) spend 10 minutes drawing accord-
ing to the instructions. Participants were asked to return all
materials to their envelope and notify the experimenter
when a timer signaled that 10 minutes had passed. In this
way, the experimenter was kept blind to each participant’s
group assignment. In addition to the sealed envelope, each
participant received 20 to 30 assorted colored markers. Sim-
ilar sets of markers were used across participants; due to an
oversight, the specific set of colors in each set was not
recorded. However, because the sets were similar and the
experimenters blinded to group assignment, any small varia-
tions in the marker sets were distributed randomly across
participants.
Participants in the expression of negative feeling condi-
tion (Group Venting) received an instruction page asking
them to create a drawing to express current feelings of
stress. Participants in the expression of happiness condition
(Group Positive Expression) were asked to draw something
that made them happy. Participants in the distraction con-
dition (Group Tracing) were asked to trace a coloring book
line drawing of a sailboat provided in their envelope. They
were also asked to color in their traced image. All three
groups received a blank 8.500 £ 1100 sheet of white copy
paper on which to make their drawings.
When the experimenter returned following the draw-
ing intervention, she administered the third and final
POMS questionnaire to each participant (post-treatment).
Participants were asked to make a list of three things that
were currently making them happy (to counteract the initial
negative mood induction) and were then debriefed as to the
nature of the study. They were instructed to keep both the
positive and negative mood induction sheets upon exiting
the lab.
Table 1. POMS Overall Negative Mood Scores at Baseline, Pre-Treatment, and Post-Treatment
Group N Baseline
Positive Expression 15 26.7 (36.2)
Venting 15 24.3 (25.1)
Tracing 15 32.4 (42.7)
Note. All values are mean (SD). For the pre - post difference scores, positive values indicate improvements in mood
(reductions in POMS overall negative mood ratings).
199
Results
Overall negative mood scores on the POMS at the
three measurement points (baseline, pre-treatment, and
post-treatment) for the three treatment groups can be found
in Table 1.
Negative Mood Induction
In order to evaluate the success of the initial mood
induction, we compared changes in POMS scores from
baseline to pre-treatment across groups. A 2-factor, repeated
measures ANOVA with group (venting, positive expression,
tracing) as a between-factor and time (baseline, pre-treat-
ment) as a within-factor revealed a significant main effect of
time, F(1, 42) D 25.8, p < .01, hp2 D 0.38. However,
there was neither a significant main effect of group nor a
significant Group £ Time interaction. As can be seen in
Table 1, all three groups showed substantial increases in
negative mood following the stressful event list. Across
groups, overall negative mood on the POMS rose from a
mean score of 27.8 to 42.8, an increase of 54%. The lack
of group effects documents that the three groups showed
comparable increases in negative mood and were well
matched for mood states prior to the drawing
manipulation.
Drawing Intervention Outcome
In order to test the impact of the three drawing condi-
tions, we conducted a 2-factor, repeated measures ANOVA
looking at group and time (pre-treatment, post-treatment).
A treatment effect would be revealed as a significant interac-
tion, meaning that the groups showed different levels of
mood change following the drawing manipulation. Overall,
there was a main effect of time, F(1, 42) D 25.3, p < .01,
hp2 D 0.38; mood generally improved from pre- to post-
treatment across all three conditions. Of greater interest, we
found a significant Group £ Time interaction, F(2, 42) D
4.0, p < .05, hp2 D 0.16. As Table 1 documents, Group
Positive Expression showed 3.4 times more improvement
than Group Venting (pre-post change score of 36.4 versus
10.7) and 2.6 times more improvement than Group Trac-
ing (pre-post change score of 36.4 versus 13.9). To examine
these differences further, we ran post-hoc analyses on pre-
post change scores using Fisher’s least significant difference
Pre Post Pre–Post
46.0 (46.9) 9.6 (29.8) 36.4 (33.6)
41.9 (32.6) 31.3 (30.9) 10.7 (27.8)
40.5 (44.5) 26.6 (34.2) 13.9 (17.4)
200 DRAWING AND NEGATIVE MOOD
test. Group Positive Expression showed significantly more
mood improvement than either Group Venting (p D .01)
or Group Tracing (p D .03). Venting and Tracing Groups
did not differ in magnitude of mood change (p D .74).
Discussion
The results of this study are easily summarized: Follow-
ing induction of a negative mood state, drawing in order to
express happiness (positive expression) produced substan-
tially more mood enhancement than drawing to express
current feelings of stress (venting) or simple tracing and col-
oring (distraction control). The tracing and venting condi-
tions did not differ from one another. These results
replicate earlier findings showing that drawing to express
positive feelings is most effective in mood improvement
(e.g., Curl, 2008; Dalebroux et al., 2008).
The present experiment expands on these earlier stud-
ies through inclusion of the tracing and coloring control
condition (distraction). Individuals drawing to express hap-
piness showed almost three times more mood improvement
compared to the tracing group. Thus, the impact of making
a drawing of something that evoked happiness exceeds the
results produced by a focused, attention-demanding draw-
ing task producing a pleasing, colored image. This result
further supports the claim that a drawing about something
positive is effective by counteracting or replacing an initial
negative mood state with a positive one (Abbott et al.,
2013; Dalebroux et al., 2008; Wilkinson & Chilton,
2013).
The present study has several specific design virtues
that are worth noting. First, random assignment reduces
the likelihood of many alternative explanations for group
differences including selection bias, maturation, history,
testing, and regression to the mean. Second, experimenter
blinding precludes the possibility that observer expectations
could have contributed to the results. Finally, participant
blinding rules out the possibility of demand effects contam-
inating group differences in outcome.
Art therapy studies face unique challenges in attempt-
ing to isolate the active ingredients underlying efficacy find-
ings. As we discussed earlier, the creation of an artwork
contains many components such as creativity, expression of
personal memories or feelings, expression of general mood
states such as depression or happiness, specific motor behav-
iors, focused attention, a sense of accomplishment or com-
pletion, and the ultimate viewing of a potentially
aesthetically pleasing end product. No single comparison
group can reasonably be expected to isolate one and only
one of these components. The present distraction control
condition is no exception. Although intended to isolate dis-
traction versus positive expression as the active ingredient
differentiating the groups, other differences between these
conditions remain. For example, participants in our tracing
and coloring condition may not have found their end prod-
uct as pleasing or soothing as those allowed to freely draw a
happy event. Tracing may still contain a stressful task-like
quality absent in free drawing. And the possibility exists
that the sailboat image used for tracing could have
prompted personal emotional states less conducive to mood
improvement than those produced in the positive condi-
tion. Replications of the present results should continue to
employ novel control conditions to conclusively isolate pos-
itive expression through drawing as the active ingredient in
mood enhancement.
As in previous studies related to art therapy in our lab
(Babouchkina & Robbins, 2015; Bell & Robbins, 2007;
Boothby & Robbins, 2011; Kimport & Robbins, 2012),
both the primary researchers and participants in this study
were undergraduate college students. Consequently, the
present results also require replication with clinical popula-
tions treated by trained art therapists. Furthermore, our
results came about following a single, 30-minute session.
The long-term impact of drawing under different instruc-
tional conditions remains to be assessed. As the third author
has argued previously, studies such as the present one
should be viewed as “proof-of-concept”—in the absence of
any of the other characteristics of typical art therapy
(trained therapists, clients with diagnosable disorders, mul-
tiple sessions), we still demonstrated that drawing to express
happiness produced substantially more mood enhancement
than either venting or tracing. These findings add to a
growing body of literature suggesting that art therapy inter-
ventions should direct clients toward positive emotional
expression, and away from venting or simple distraction, to
achieve maximum treatment efficacy.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Grace Hiegl and Sabryna
Hunt for their help in running participants in the study.
The first two authors contributed equally to this study;
order of authorship was determined by coin toss.
References
Abbott, K. A., Shanahan, M. J., & Neufeld, R.W. J. (2013).
Artistic tasks outperform nonartistic tasks for stress reduction.
Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association,
30, 71–78. doi:10.1080/07421656.2013.787214
Babouchkina, A., & Robbins, S. J. (2015). Reducing negative
mood through mandala creation: A randomized controlled trial.
Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association,
32, 34–39. doi:10.1080/07421656.2015.994428
Bell, C. E., & Robbins, S. J. (2007). Effect of art production on
negative mood: A randomized, controlled trial. Art Therapy:
Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 24, 71–75.
doi:10.1080/07421656.2007.10129589
Boothby, D. M., & Robbins, S. J. (2011). The effects of music
listening and art production on negative mood: A randomized,
controlled trial. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 38, 204–208.
doi:10.1016/j.aip.2011.06.002
Chambala, A. (2008). Anxiety and art therapy: Treatment in the
public eye. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy
 SMOLARSKI / LEONE / ROBBINS
Association, 25, 187–189. doi:10.1080/07421656.2008.
10129540
Curl, K. (2008). Assessing stress reduction as a function of artistic
creation and cognitive focus. Art Therapy: Journal of the Ameri-
can Art Therapy Association, 25, 164–169. doi:10.1080/
07421656.2008.10129550
Dalebroux, A., Goldstein, T. R., & Winner, E. (2008). Short-
term mood repair through art-making: Positive emotion is
more effective than venting. Motivation and Emotion, 32,
288–295. doi:10.1007/s11031-008-9105-1
De Petrillo, L., & Winner, E. (2005). Does art improve mood? A
test of a key assumption underlying art therapy. Art Therapy:
Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 22, 205–212.
doi:10.1080/07421656.2005.10129521
Drake, J. E., Coleman, K., & Winner, E. (2011). Short-term
mood repair through art: Effects of medium and strategy. Art
Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 28,
26–30. doi:10.1080/07421656.2011.557032
Drake, J. E., & Winner, E. (2012). Confronting sadness through
art making: Distraction is more beneficial than venting. Psychol-
ogy of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 255–261.
doi:10.1037/a0026909
Henderson, P., Rosen, D., & Mascaro, N. (2007). Empirical
study on the healing nature of mandalas. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 148–154. doi:10.1037/1931-
3896.1.3.148
Kapitan, L. (2012). Does art therapy work? Identifying the active
ingredients of art therapy efficacy. Art Therapy: Journal of the
American Art Therapy Association, 29, 48–49. doi:10.1080/
07421656.2012.684292
201
Kimport, E. R., & Robbins, S. J. (2012). Efficacy of creative clay
work for reducing negative mood: A randomized controlled
trial. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Associa-
tion, 29, 74–79. doi:10.1080/07421656.2012.680048
Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Jr., Bahnik,
S., Bernstein, M. J., . . . Nosek, B. A. (2014). Investigating varia-
tion in replicability: A “many labs” replication project. Social
Psychology, 45, 142–152. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
Kramer, E. (2000). Art as therapy. London, England: Jessica
Kingsley.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971). The Pro-
file of Mood States. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial
Testing Service.
Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collab-
orative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological
science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 657–660.
doi:10.1177/1745691612462588
Pizarro, J. (2004). The efficacy of art and writing therapy: Increas-
ing positive mental health outcomes and participant retention
after exposure to traumatic experience. Art Therapy: Journal of
the American Art Therapy Association, 21, 5–12. doi:10.1080/
07421656.2004.10129327
Slayton, S. C., D’Archer, J., & Kaplan, F. (2010). Outcome
studies on the efficacy of art therapy: A review of findings. Art
Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 27,
108–119. doi:10.1080/07421656.2010.10129660
Wilkinson, R. A., & Chilton, G. (2013). Positive art therapy: Linking
positive psychology to art therapy theory, practice, and research.
Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 30,
4–11. doi:10.1080/07421656.2013.757513