Selected articles

Psychodrama in individual Psychotherapy by John Casson

 

Psychodrama is usually regarded as a group therapy and psychodrama “a deux” can be seen as a poor, even inferior, relative. However this is what Moreno himself says on the recently rediscovered “Holwell” tape:“Psychodrama can be done also on an individual basis. You cannot do group psychotherapy except in a group - that is what the word means. You can do psychodrama a deux. You can do psychodrama just like you do psychoanalysis. Instead of being on a couch you are on a stage in action, in a series of actions. You can do group psychodrama and individual psychodrama. Psychodrama is really more inclusive than group psychotherapy.”(Moreno, 1965)

 

This article explores the possibilities, benefits and difficulties of psychodrama in individual therapy. It also reports the findings of a workshop on this subject (“How many roles can you play?”) at the B.P.A. Glasgow conference (1996). Participants were excited to have permission to use the method in individual work and I will share some of what we learned in that workshop later in this article.

 

The Primacy of the Encounter:

Moreno began his career with the philosophy of the encounter (“a concept central to the existential movement”, Greenberg, 1974, 254). His famous poem of a meeting of two persons, eye to eye, is from his first publication, “Invitation to an Encounter” (1914). The encounter between the client and therapist is the basis of individual work: Moreno suggests that it is a failure to achieve a sufficiently sensitive tele in this encounter that results in therapeutic failures. (Greenberg, 1974, 257)

“The encounter is extemporaneous, unstructured, unplanned, unrehearsed - it occurs on the spur of the moment. It is “in the moment” and “in the here”, “in the now”. It can be thought of as the preamble, the universal frame of all forms of structured meeting, the common matrix of all psychotherapies, from the total subordination of the patient (as in the hypnotic situation) to the superiority and autonomy of the protagonist (as in psychodrama).”(Moreno, 1974, 256)

 

“The relation between therapist and patient, whether in individual or group psychotherapy, requires telic sensitivity. Telic sensitivity is “trainable”. It is tele which establishes natural “correspondence” between therapist and patient.” (Moreno, 1974, 257)

 

I liken this to empathy and congruence in Rogerian counselling and contact in the Gestalt sense: Moreno is calling for a real relationship, an openness on the part of the therapist to make a real connection with the client so that there is a positive choice on the part of both to work together. Some transparency, immediacy, presence, warmth, sharing from the therapist can enable this to be established. In developing a relationship courtesy, respect, unconditional positive regard are essential but tele is spontaneous and operates instantaneously and through the co-unconscious so it cannot be forced. Anne Bannister writes that tele “differs from empathy in that it is two-way. There has to be an equal pull between therapist and client...Tele differs from transference...in that it is a “here and now” experience that does not have echoes from the past lives of either therapist or client. Tele contains trust and a belief that both participants can be creative together.” (Bannister, 1992, 89)

 

Tele can be enabled by the therapist being present in the here and now, in the immediate first encounter as a fellow human being: those crucial first few minutes of the initial contact and especially at the beginnings of (and of course during) subsequent sessions. I used to have my notes on the table between me and the client to help me contain my anxieties about “getting it right”. (I notice this behaviour in doctors who now have not only the prescription pad and the file but a computer between them and the patient as well!) Now I put the notes to one side and endeavour to be present with the client, trusting that I will remember enough at the end of the session and knowing that the here and now encounter is the essential holding and healing relationship/container for the work. I also take Winnicott’s definition of psychotherapy as axiomatic:“Psychotherapy takes place in the overlap of two areas of playing, that of the patient and that of the therapist. Psychotherapy has to do with two people playing together” (Winnicott, 1991, 38): if I am not fully present I cannot be truly spontaneous and playful. What is learned from the initial encounter is also important for the assessment of the client. Paul Holmes writes of beginning his assessment process with an encounter: a less than formal human interaction with a cup of tea. (Mace, 1995, 90)

 

What actually is Encounter and what processes are at work that translate into the therapy? Moreno wanted encounter to be a process whereby we see the other through their eyes: this is basically to role reverse with them and is the basis of empathy. As I meet someone I can stay in my own shell or empathically feel what it is like to be them. From nonverbal behaviours I can get clues as to how they are feeling, perceiving me, what they need from me or the situation. Through sharing my perception I can check its accuracy and give clients a feeling of being seen, heard, accepted as they are held. I can also ask how they are perceiving me and thus get clues to transference or receive feedback as to how I am presenting myself and what they need.

 

Why do Individual Therapy?

Some clients are too vulnerable, anti-social or isolate, or not ready for group work. In the case of small children, individual work may provide the only possible, appropriate container. There may be no appropriate group available or the client may prefer one to one work: possibly fearing rejection or feeling unable to trust a group due to past experiences. Individual work may then enable them to resolve matters or help prepare them for group psychodrama. Some individual work will be necessary even when the therapist may be able to offer a group: there will be prior individual assessment and in these sessions some creative, active work can be done to aid acculturation to the method. Badaines reminds us that Moreno himself warned in 1973 that “some scenes may be too difficult for a protagonist to enact in front of a group.” (Badaines 1984, 42) He also points out that psychodrama may be used in supervision where the method can enable the therapist to re-enact and review their difficulties.

 

Creative Action Methods in Individual Therapy:

The Wider Perspective: History:

Action methods have been used in individual therapy for thousands of years: by the shamans who enacted dramatic encounters with demons and rescued the lost soul of the patient. (Casson, 1984, Eliade, 1989)

 

Janet (1891), the great French pioneer of Psychological Analysis (1859 -1947), used hypnosis and drama together, re-enacting traumatic scenes to achieve catharsis and modify the patient’s fixed ideas stemming from the traumas underlying their symptoms. Moreno in 1950 suggested the possibility of hypnodrama. (Moreno & Moreno 1975; Supple, 1974)

 

In “Studies of Hysteria” written in 1895 Freud's colleague and co-author Josef Breuer writes of a spontaneous “psychodrama” (before Moreno) during Anna O's treatment: in this she “set the scene” and thereby accessed vivid psychological material relating to the repressed trauma of her father's death. “...by the help of rearranging the room so as to resemble her father's sick room she reproduced the terrifying hallucinations I have described above and which constituted the root of her whole illness.”(Freud and Breuer 1895, 95)

 

Freud did not encourage action, seeing any action as “acting out” and by definition avoiding feelings or resistance to the therapist. Sandor Ferenczi, (at first a disciple of Freud who later broke with him) experimented with “active techniques...with the analyst adopting definite roles and attitudes...” (Brown and Pedder, 1991, 109) Such ideas were not acceptable to the psychoanalytic establishment.

 

I draw attention to these historical items because they show that the pioneers of psychotherapy did use action in individual therapy when their patients needed such. I make no presumption that such use of action was definitely effective: some claimed it to be so whilst others disputed this. Moreno, as he developed the method, practised individual psychodrama with and without trained auxiliaries to assist him.

 

The Present Day:

Today dramatherapists, gestaltists, psychosynthesists, dance/movement therapists and many others use action techniques in individual therapy. We have much to learn from each other and whilst there are differences there are also substantial overlaps. It is possible to synthesise and co-operate between methods for the benefit of clients (Casson, 1995).

 

Dramatherapists have written extensively on individual therapy. David Read Johnson, an American Dramatherapist, has developed a method of individual psychotherapy called “Transformations” (Johnson, 1991; Jennings, 1992) in which the client and therapist work through spontaneous role play based on a drama improvisation exercise devised by Viola Spolin. It is the dramatherapy equivalent of free association in which roles instantaneously are transformed into other roles according to the client's process. Spolin herself had already written on the therapeutic value of this activity (Spolin, 1981 and 1996).

 

There is a section on individual dramatherapy, in Alida Gersie’s study of Brief Dramatherapy covering work with children, adolescents, clients hospitalised with chronic or reactive depression, psychotic individuals; Sue Jennings has a chapter in this section titled: “The Healing Power of the Dramatised Here and Now”. (Gersie 1996, 177 - 251)

 

Steve Mitchell writes of the “Ritual of Individual Dramatherapy” (Mitchell, 1996, 71). Landy, (1992) writes of the role of the dramatherapist working with individuals in “Dramatherapy Theory and Practice 2”. Sue Jennings has written elsewhere on Dramatherapy with Individuals (Jennings, 1990).

 

The Psychodrama Literature:

There are very few references to psychodrama a deux in the literature that are readily available.

 

One article did appear in the very first Journal of the British Psychodrama Association: “Psychodrama in Therapeutic Dyads” by Joel Badaines (1984). The most extensive writing on psychodrama a deux is in David Kipper’s book: “Psychotherapy Through Clinical Role Playing” (Kipper, 1986). In his bibliography Kipper lists a monograph by James Vander May (1980). Katherine Hudgins and Donald Kiesler wrote an interesting research paper on Doubling in Individual Therapy in 1984, following this up in 1987 with careful research into the effectiveness of doubling in individual therapy. Anne Bannister has written about psychodrama in individual therapy with children and adult female survivors of childhood sexual abuse. (Bannister, 1989, 1992, 1997)

 

The Findings of Glasgow 1996:

About thirty people attended the workshop in Glasgow, qualified practitioners, trainees and others interested in the method. I asked them to divide into threes: one director, one protagonist and an observer who was not to play any role. We first identified who the potential directors were: practitioners and senior trainees. Potential protagonists then chose directors and the observers made up the trio. They worked together for an hour. After the psychodramas these trios separated and met together in three groups: all the directors, all the protagonists and all the observers, to discuss the issues. They then reported back to the whole group.

 

The Protagonists said they appreciated the power of the method used in this way, its speed and efficiency. (There is after all no competition to become protagonist, no group process. Whereas a psychodrama group can take several hours, individual psychodrama properly fits into the therapeutic hour.) They felt the director was more focused and empathic. (There is no competition for her/his attention.) The protagonists reported feeling more in control. (There are no other group members to spontaneously disrupt, contribute to or divert the process.) The one negative point the protagonists made was that individual psychodrama meant there was no witnessing audience and thus little sharing (though the director can share as part of closure). It was possible however to create a psychodramatic audience with an empty chair as a projective technique and the director is also a witness. A trained auxiliary can also function as a witness/audience in individual work.

 

The Observers made the following points:

There must be enough empty chairs so that each role can have its own chair. The director must be clear which role he/she is in and concretise this by changing chairs.

May confirms this: “It is very important that the client actually changes chairs or space with the significant other when role reversing. This helps confirm the identity of whom the client is portraying at a given moment. It also eliminates the confusion some individuals experience when they begin in psychodrama therapy.” (May, 1980, 5)

The director will have to educate the protagonist in the method as there will be no group culture so the director will need to model playfulness and spontaneity.

The director will have to get a clear contract and check out how the protagonist feels, watching for transferential feelings that might distort the work: in group psychodrama the transference can be diluted and handled partly by auxiliaries playing the roles of significant others. Of course transferential feelings towards the director will happen in group psychodrama but in individual psychodrama they may be more intense: there is nowhere else for them to go!

 

The Directors felt it was important to have a large enough, flexible space, and a certain minimum of equipment (especially enough chairs). They were concerned that the protagonist might feel silly: this picks up the point that the observers made about the client needing to be educated in the method and see the director model playful behaviours. I think it is no bad thing for the client to see the director/therapist behave in “silly” ways and laugh at them: a bit of clowning may lighten the atmosphere, show the client the therapist is not so pompous, that he/she is not afraid to “make a fool of themselves” and this can promote a catharsis of laughter with its attendant relaxation of tension. If the powerful person in the room can play perhaps the client can play: this is especially important with children.

 

The directors felt that boundaries were an important issue: in group psychodrama group members may touch each other and this is less potentially threatening than for a therapist to touch a client in individual therapy.

 

One possibility was for the protagonist to play all the necessary roles. The directors were concerned whether it was possible or potentially dangerous for the director to play very negative roles.

 

On one occasion when a protagonist needed to confront their abuser the director used a monster puppet to represent the abuser: speaking as, but not personally playing, the role. It is possible to briefly double the negative role’s empty chair rather than sit in it. Thus the voice of the figure is heard when necessary but the therapist does not become identified with the abuser. When the client is ready it is sometimes useful for the protagonist to play this role but the timing of this needs to be handled with care.

 

Guidelines for Individual Psychodrama:

Space:

It is essential to have enough space and not to work in too small a room. The B.P.A. Code of Ethics and Practice states that: “Psychodramatists will give attention to the physical environment in which they work with clients, in order to provide a safe and secure space for therapy.” Protagonists must be able to walk about the space and have available sufficient resources such as chairs and cushions to set the scenes of the drama. The director must also be able to move, be flexible and able to see the situation from different points of view: psychodrama a deux is an action method in which both parties are active: the therapist does not just sit in a chair whilst the client moves.

 

2) Assessment:

The Encounter between the therapist and the client is the basis for the assessment, as stated above. Anne Ancelin Schutzenberger, (1991) has taught the method of genosociogram: the compiling of a comprehensive family tree annotated with scripts, cultural, historical and other family information as an assessment and therapeutic method that leads naturally into psychodrama. Improvisation and spontaneity tests were used by Moreno as assessment tools (Moreno & Moreno, 1975b). Whilst these were used in group contexts they may also be possible in individual work, though this may also demand the therapist be a creative partner in the action, much as in Johnson’s dramatherapy “Transformations” method. One technique I have found useful is to invite the client to role reverse with a friend (real or imaginary). I then interview the client as their friend: asking her/him to describe the client, what they like about the person, what their strengths are. Such an activity can raise self esteem as well as give me an idea of the person’s view of him/herself and ability to role reverse.

 

Other assessment methods would include the drawing of the client’s social atom and projective techniques such as sculpting objects.

 

3) Warm-up:

The therapist needs to be warmed up and spontaneous. This may mean reading the notes from last week’s session; doing some physical movement before the session; preparing the space. The initial encounter of client and therapist may be sufficient warm-up: talking about their needs and feelings, reflecting on the last session, may be sufficient to clarify the issue to be worked on. Warm-up exercises and creative activities to promote spontaneity and creativity are as relevant to individual work as to group psychodrama and some clients will need such warm-ups, especially those who are inhibited, frozen or otherwise unable to play.

 

4) Double:

The empathic doubling of the therapist facilitates the client and the relationship between client and therapist and promotes the development of tele.To ensure clarity of which role the therapist is in I would advise she/he does not double from her/his own chair: set another chair to be the double chair and change chairs, returning to the therapist chair (Casson, 1995).

 

“Stein and Callahan, 1982, suggest that the client can also be his own double. They also report that doubling may be especially effective with clients who are less aware of their own feelings, or are immersed in their own worlds.” (Badaines, 1984, 43) This is confirmed by research by Goldstein (1967) and Goldstein (1971), two separate researchers, who investigated the same hypothesis where the latter replicated and improved the study by the former. They found that the double method significantly improved the rate and duration of the verbal expressions of extremely withdrawn hospitalised patients.

 

These patients were so withdrawn that they were considered unsuitable for conventional psychotherapy. Goldstein (1971) found that the positive effect continued long after the cessation of the doubling procedure. Badaines warns however that “With doubling, the level of trust is also important because the client may otherwise feel uncomfortable with the physical proximity of the double.” (Badaines, 1984,45) Vander May also cautions that the therapist in doubling the client be “aware of the difference between the therapist’s issues and the client’s.” (May, 1980, 20) In doubling the therapist must keep an awareness of being in two roles: double and therapist. Again changing chairs can ensure clarity of which role one is playing at any given time. It is advisable for the therapist not to stay too long in the role of double.

 

Hudgins and Kiesler (1984), offer an instructional manual for doubling in Individual Therapy in which they suggest a three part process during a session: likening it to the three stages of warm-up, enactment and sharing. In the first stage the therapist would concentrate their doubling on intra-psychic processes: internal feelings, thoughts and action tendencies. The therapist doubles from a chair alongside the client encouraging her to speak to the therapist’s now empty chair. In the second stage the therapist as double encourages the client to focus on what he/she needs to communicate to a significant other: now speaking to another empty chair where the significant other is imagined to be.

 

This stage concentrates on interpersonal feelings, thoughts and actional tendencies. In both these stages the therapist pays particular attention to nonverbal cues from the client. In the third stage the therapist does not double but invites the client to close his/her eyes and focus internally on the meaning of the experience. This reflective phase included some processing and clarifying of insights gained. Hudgins and Kiesler (1984) followed up this paper with further research in 1987, that showed the doubling intervention not only increased the empathic bonding between client and therapist but also “the double leads the subject in a manner experienced by her as supportive of increased awareness and experiential risk-taking”...resulting in “unexpected shifts in experiencing before either has much time to reflect on what is occurring.” “Doubling...makes it easier for the therapist to bypass subject resistances ...”, promoting action insight and self disclosure. (Hudgins and Kiesler, 1984, 253)

 

Hudgins and Toscani (1997) are further responsible for the development of the “Containing Double” technique which can also be useful in individual therapy with trauma survivors. The Containing Double facilitates self-support and stability and is always positive, as if the protagonist were being given a good enough mother, each containing double statement comprises the following elements: “A reflective statement to establish empathic bonding.A containing statement that holds the content and process that was reflected.A statement focusing on the present moment, the here and now.”(Hudgins, 1997,6)

 

In individual therapy the therapist can take on the containing role “for a brief period of enactment, to support containment, safe expression of affect, or the ability to tolerate the exploration of core trauma. After the role has been established by the therapist, the containing double can be externally represented by an object and thus, always available to the client during individual sessions. Additionally, this safety object can become a transitional object that the client takes home in between sessions to further increase active experiencing of containment.” (Hudgins, 1997,13)

 

5) Mirror:

The therapist can play the protagonist’s role thus providing him/her with the mirror technique: this can give the director greater insight into the protagonist’s situation and help the protagonist to gain greater distance/objectivity and strengthen their “observer ego”. When the therapist is playing the protagonist in the mirror technique, the protagonist can be invited to take the role of the director and thus become their own therapist. Mirroring, suggests Badaines, can develop into modelling: “After the client has portrayed the particular role, the therapist then carefully mirrors the client in action. The client steps out of role and observes this mirroring-of-self. It may then be very helpful to invite the client to suggest behaviour changes which could lead to desired outcomes, and to have an opportunity to incorporate the suggested changes in action.” (Badaines, 1984, 44) (see Role Training section below.)

 

6) Role Reversal:

Just as in group psychodrama role reversal is a major source of the therapy and apart from using empty chairs to symbolise roles the protagonist benefits in many ways from presenting the role through role reversal. Vander May (1980), suggests that it can be useful for the client to role reverse with the therapist. Badaines cautions that “Techniques such as role reversal are probably not a good idea for clients with poor ego boundaries and/or with difficulties differentiating reality from psychodramatic experience.” (Badaines, 1984, 45) It may be that in developmental terms such clients need sufficient doubling and mirroring before they can move on to role reversal.

 

7) Role Training and Rehearsal:

“...vignettes for exploring difficulties in relationships or enacting specific situations to develop more effective behaviours...are possible in one-to-one work...”(Badaines, 1984, 44) In such work the therapist can play a variety of roles: either less competent roles that the client educates with suggestions of changes to the behaviour or a competent model of desired behaviours for the client to try. The client and therapist can reverse roles repeatedly trying out behaviours so the client can see their behaviour both mirrored and modelled.

 

8) Concretisation:

With the limitations of resources available “concretisation is best accomplished through role reversal. The client may thus take the role of her guilt, her stuckness, etc.” (Badaines, 1984, 44) Vander May cautions against the therapist becoming physically involved in concretising clients’ images and suggests that in the absence of others to play roles the client role reverse with the image or use objects to represent it. (May, 1980, 16)

 

9) Empty Chairs:

It is essential to have available several empty chairs: one for each role. It can aid clarity if the chairs are different colours, sizes and shapes: these differences can have symbolic meanings and thus help the protagonist visualise the significant other in the empty chair. (“The black chair is my negativity.” “The comfy armchair is my grandma’s.”) Kipper advises: “use the empty chair technique and its variations as often as possible.”(Kipper,1986, 341)

 

10) Coloured Lights:

These are a valuable facility that can be used in individual therapy just as in group work. The protagonist can choose the lighting and have control of the tone and brightness. In my private practice room, which is only large enough for individual work, I have had coloured lights and curtains installed and clients do appreciate being able to adjust the light to their needs. Having such control over their environment may be therapeutic in itself.

 

11) Trained Auxiliaries:

It is possible to do individual psychodrama with a trained auxiliary to play some of the roles needed. Any such auxiliary must have experience and training in psychodrama to prepare for this work. There are several advantages to having a trained auxiliary: for example, a male therapist can work with a particularly frightened woman in the supportive company of a female auxiliary. When a client has a history of violence the presence of a colleague may make it safe for the work to proceed at all. Other advantages that stem from trained auxiliaries are that there is another witness or audience to validate the client’s experience and someone else to share with the client in the closure. The therapist also has a colleague to process the work after the session. Moreno himself suggested that the availability of a professional auxiliary may be helpful to the psychodrama therapist to “maintain his own identity as director unimpaired” (Moreno, 1975, 232) In other words, the presence of an auxiliary will mean the therapist will not suffer role confusion in playing other roles.

 

12) The Therapist as Auxiliary:

I have already discussed the role of therapist as double. As long as the therapist leaves his/her empty chair to symbolise and contain the role of therapist it is possible for the therapist to play other auxiliary roles. Entering into a role will either be done through role reversal, just as in group psychodrama, or may be taken on briefly by the therapist using his/her own spontaneity/creativity and knowledge of the client’s inner world and relationships. Caution suggests the therapist not stay in any one role for too long and check out with the client whether their perception is accurate. “If therapists have to actively assume auxiliary roles, these should be kept short and brief, not exceeding a few minutes. Jumping in and out of auxiliary roles is a safeguard against intense emotional investment in, and an undue identification with, any particular portrayal” (Kipper, 1986, 341). This work demands flexibility and a lightness of play: the ability to move in and out of role. Modelling such role flexibility and playing with the client may indeed, as in the dramatherapeutic “transformations” process, be therapeutic. Such playfulness is a demonstration of psychodrama as the “aesthetic demonstration of freedom” (Moreno, 1983, 82) and implicitly gives the client permission and modelling for playfulness: the method becomes “Two people playing together” (Winnicott, 1991, 38).

 

However: Beware ROLE CONFUSION, for both therapist and client. The frequent insistence in this article that there be sufficient chairs to hold different roles is intended to ensure that client and therapist do not become confused as to who is playing what role at any particular time. The director must be clear what role they are in and check on the protagonist’s perception of their role. Badaines suggests that the therapist “limit the variety and number of functions she takes in a session, in that it may be too confusing for both the therapist and the client.” (Badaines, 1984, 45) He also warns that, more than in group therapy where, through the use of auxiliaries, the transference is diluted, in individual work client and therapist must review their relationship, taking possible transference feelings into account. Stein and Callahan (1982), also stress this aspect of the process. Vander May (1980) suggests role reversing the client with the therapist to check on the accuracy of each other’s perceptions and thus explore transference.

 

13) Closure and De-roling:

The closure may include a check whether the protagonist needs de-roling from any role played. It is also a time to review the client/therapist relationship in the here and now: it is “crucial is that the therapist leaves ample time for discussing this issue and allows the client’s emotions to return to tolerable level, and for de-roling (client and therapist). De-roling may include sharing perceptions gained from the roles and expressing any vestigial emotions. Of equal importance is exploring the new perceptions or insights gained from the session, and their implications for the client’s life.” (Badaines, 1984, 46)

 

14) Sharing:

In individual psychodrama the only person available to share with the protagonist is the therapist. I see such sharing at the end of the session as completing the encounter. It is supportive of the protagonist and humanises the therapist. If in doubt whether to share the therapist will need to consider in supervision what may be the limits and appropriate boundaries to such sharing: the method encourages transparency in the therapist.

 

15) Timing:

The above shows that the therapist has to keep a clear idea of time: the luxury of the two/three hour psychodrama is not available. If 10 minutes be allowed for warm-up and 35-40 minutes for the enactment then the last 15-10 minutes will be for sharing, reflection and closure. Cox (1978) has written on the structuring of the therapeutic process in terms of time, depth and mutuality and this needs especially to be borne in mind in individual work: therapeutic ambition (endemic in the spectacular nature of psychodrama?) must be moderated to the size of the container and the strength of the client (though this would be equally true in a group).

 

16) Boundaries:

In individual therapy boundaries of touch, contact outside the session, confidentiality and the time boundaries of the session need to be kept: these are especially an ethical responsibility of the therapist. The regular one hour session may mean that a psychodrama will only have a limited time to develop and yet safety suggests that the session should not be extended: the therapist needs to keep an eye on the time and draw the session towards closure in the last ten minutes.

However, whilst psychodramatists today take care to preserve appropriate boundaries in clinical sessions, Moreno wanted his method to be maximally flexible: to be done “in situ”: wherever the client was found. Marcia Karp has been able to do useful individual work even on board a trans-Atlantic flight! (Karp, 1994)

 

Acknowledgements:

 

I am grateful to James Vander May for sending me a copy of his paper and to Marcia Karp for making me aware of K. Hudgins and D. Kiesler’s paper.

 

References:

Ancelin Shutzenberger, Anne (1991), The Drama of the Seriously Ill Patient, chapter 13 in Holmes and Karp, Psychodrama, Inspiration and Technique, London, Routledge.Badaines, J., 1984, Psychodrama in Therapeutic Dyads, Journal of the British Psychodrama Association,1 (1), 42-46.

Bannister, A., 1989, Healing Action - Action methods with children who have been sexually abused. In Child Sexual Abuse: Listening, Hearing and Validating the Experiences of Children edited by C. Whattam et al, Harlow, Essex, Longman.

Bannister, A., 1992, From Hearing to Healing, Harrow, Essex, Longman.

Bannister, A., 1997, The Healing Drama: Psychodrama and Dramatherapy with Abused Children, London, Free Association Books.

BPA Code of Ethics, British Psychodrama Association, Oxford.

Brown, D. and Pedder, J., 1991, introduction to Psychotherapy, London, Routledge.

Casson, J., 1984, The Therapeutic Dramatic Community Ceremonies of Sri Lanka, The Journal of the British Association for Dramatherapists, 7 (2) .

Casson, J., 1995, Dramatherapy, Psychodrama and Dance Movement Therapy, Journal of the British Association for Dramatherapists, 17 (1 & 2).

Casson, J., 1996, The Healing Drama: a Colloquium Between People Jointly Qualified as Psychodramatists and Dramatherapists, Journal of the British Psychodrama Association 11 (1 & 2).

Cox, M., 1978, Structuring the Therapeutic Process, Compromise with Chaos, Oxford , Pergamon Press.

Eliade, M., 1989, Shamanism. Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, London, Arkana, Penguin.

Ellenberger, H.F., 1994, The Discovery of the Unconscious, London, Fontana Press.

Freud, S., and Breuer, J., 1973, Studies on Hysteria, London, Penguin Freud Library, Vol 3.

Gersie, A., 1996, Dramatic Approaches to Brief Therapy, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers (ed).

Goldstein, S.G., 1967,The effect of doubling on involvement in group psychotherapy as measured by number and duration of patient utterances. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, No 4, pp 57-60.

Goldstein, J.A., 1971, Investigation of doubling as a technique for involving severely withdrawn patients in group psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, No 37, pp 155-162

Greenberg, I., 1974, Psychodrama, Theory and Therapy. London, Condor, Souvenir Press.

Holmes, P. and Karp M., 1991, Psychodrama Inspiration and Technique, London, Routledge.

Holmes, P., 1995, How I assess for psychodrama groups, chapter 6 in Mace, C., 1995, The Art and Science of Assessment in Psychotherapy, London, Routledge.

Hudgins, M.K. and Kiesler, D.J., 1984, Instructional Manual for Doubling in Individual Therapy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A.

Hudgins, K. and Kiesler, D.J., 1987, Individual Experiential Psychotherapy: An Analogue Validation of the Intervention Module of Psychodramatic Doubling. Psychotherapy, 24 (2).

Hudgins, K. and Toscani, F., 1997, The Containing Double: An Action Intervention for Safety when treating Severe Trauma, private publication from The Centre for Experiential Learning Ltd., 1023 Millmont Street, Charlottesville, VA., U.S.A..

Jennings, S., 1990, Dramatherapy with Families, Groups and Individuals: Waiting in the Wings, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Jennings, S., 1992, Dramatherapy Theory and Practice 2, London, Tavistock/Routledge.

Jennings, S., 1996, Brief Dramatherapy: The Healing Poer of the Dramatised Here and Now, chapter 14 in Gersie, A., 1996, Dramatic Approaches to Brief Therapy, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Johnson, D.R., 1991, The Theory and Technique of Transformations in Dramatherapy, Arts in Psychotherapy 18, (285 - 300).

Karp, M., 1994, Psychodrama in the Air, Bulletin of the British Psychodrama Association, July 1994.

Kipper, D., 1986, Psychotherapy Through Clinical Role Playing, New York, Brunner/Mazel.

Landy, R., 1992, One-on-One: the role of the dramatherapist working with individuals, chapter 7 in Jennings, S., 1992, Dramatherapy Theory and Practice 2, London, Tavistock/Routledge.

Landy, R., 1993, Persona and Performance, the Meaning of Role in Drama, Therapy, and Everyday Life, London, Jessica Kingsley.

Mace, C., 1995, The Art and Science of Assessment in Psychotherapy, London, Routledge.

May, J.H.V., 1980, Psychodrama a Deux, A monograph. Orellana Institute, 832 Forest Hill, SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49546, USA.

Mitchell, S., 1996, Dramatherapy Clinical Studies, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Moreno, J.L., 1965, The Voice of J.L. Moreno, interviewed by James Sacks, New York: audio tape, copyright Marcia Karp, copies available from Holwell International Centre for Psychodrama and Sociodrama, East Down, near Barnstaple, N. Devon, EX31 4NZ

Moreno, J.L., 1973, Note on the Indications and Contra-indications For Acting Out in Psychodrama, Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama, Vol XXXVI, no 1-2, New York, Beacon House.

Moreno, J.L. and Moreno, Z.T., 1975a, Psychodrama, second volume, New York , Beacon House.

Moreno, J.L. and Moreno, Z. T., 1975b, Psychodrama, third volume, New York , Beacon House.

Moreno, J.L., 1983, The Theatre of Spontaneity, Pennsylvania, Beacon House Inc.

Schattner G. and Courtney R., 1983, Drama in Therapy, Vols 1&2 New York, Wiley .

Spolin, V., 1996, Improvisation for the Theatre. Illinois, Northwestern University Press.

Spolin, V., 1981, Theatre Games. In Drama In Therapy, Vol 2, part 3, chapter 14, edited by Courtney R., and Schattner G., Drama Book Specialists N.Y.

Stein, M. and Callahan M, 1982, The Use of Psychodrama in Individual Psychotherapy, Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama, Vol XXXV, 118-129. Washington D.C., Heldref Publications.

Supple, 1974, Hypnodrama, a Synthesis of Hypnosis and Psychodrama, chapter 24 in Greenberg, I., 1974, Psychodrama, Theory and Therapy. London, Condor, Souvenir Press.

Vander May J., 1980, see May, J.H.V.

Winnicott, D.W., 1991, Playing and Reality, London, Routledge.

 

John Casson 1997