SOCIAL AND PERSONAL CHANGES FOLLOWING NON-DIRECTIVE GROUP PLAY THERAPY

SOCIAL AND PERSONAL CHANGES FOLLOWING NON- DIRECTIVE GROUP PLAY THERAPY

LOUISE FLEMING AND WILLIAM U. SNYDER Ohio State University

study is based on an experiment in one type of group play therapy T“’” with children. I t s purpose is to determine whether or not measurable changes in social and personal adjustment occur as a result of this therapy.

The experiment is exploratory in nature in that it marks an attempt to apply nondirective principles in a group situation. Although a nondirective type of therapy has been found successful in a number of cases of individual children, there has been no published study of its application to groups of children.

Slavson,l outstanding in this new field, has developed a type of activity group therapy in which children are grouped according to a rather rigid set of criteria, and are accepted for contacts lasting sometimes over a period of three years. The actual group situation is characterized by an atmosphere of permissiveness accompanied by a manner of neutral passivity on the part of the adult leader. The present study was motivated in part by a desire to find a way in which therapy might be shortened through a somewhat different approach.

Virginia Axline,2 in a recent article, reported the use of therapy in a class- room situation which bears a close similarity to that emphasized in this study. However, she made no attempt to measure objectively any change in subjects’ adjustment. In the Summer of 1944, under the direction of Miss Axline, several graduate students a t Ohio State University3 undertook group contacts with children, using a method such as the one employed here.

Procedure Three tests were given to 46 children, seven of whom were selected for

three girls in one group and four boys in the other. After twelve weeks of treatment, 30 of the original 46 were retested, and results of the pre- and end tests analyzed for change in the seven experimental subjects.

Location .f subjects. Subjects live in a progressively operated children’s home located about ten miles from the University’s playroom. Enrollment Of the home is approximately 100 children, ages 3 to 17, most of whom come from broken homes. Three separate cottages are provided-one for boys, One for girls, and a third for all children under six years of age. Each cottage

’* R . Slavson. An Introdwtion t o Group Therapy, New York, The Commonwealth Fund, 1943. Virginia M. Axline. Morale on the School Front, J. Educational Research, March 1944, pp. 521-533.

a sixb’ Intmicnus in Group Play Therapy, Ohio State University, 1944 (unpublished).

101

102 NONDIRECTIVE GROUP PLAY THERAPY

is staffed with one governess for every ten youngsters, a housemother, and a cook.

Administration of tests. Pre-tests were administered by a graduate student in clinical psychology. It was considered advisable that the therapist not become first acquainted with the children through a testing situation. Rogers Personality Test, his “Guess Who” Test, and a sociometric test were given to 26 boys and 21 girls. The two latter tests were administered to all boys a t one time and to all girls a t another; the personality test was given to small groups of 10 to 16. These tests served two purposes: 1) they afforded scores against which retests might be checked; 2) they formed a criterion by which subjects were selected for treatment.

Description and scoring. Rogers Personality Test is designed to measure the degree of adjustment in four different areas-family, social relations, fantasy life, and feelings toward the self, Questions are so arranged that the child may put check marks or numbers by those answers which are true for him. The age range covered is roughly 9 to 13, and the test may be administered either to groups or individuals.

The Sociometric Test, devised by Fleming, consists of four questions in each of which the subject is asked to name two persons in his group with whom he would like to do things, and two others with whom he would not. In finding an individual score, a first choice in rejection was assigned a value of three points, a second choice, one point. The sum of these rejections com- prised the sociometric score. Acceptance scores were ignored in selecting subjects for therapy.

The “Guess Who” test is a rating of children by their peers. It is set up in game-like form, each child being instructed to guess the person in his group who has the characteristic described in the questions. As with the sociometric test, there is no standardized scoring procedure. Since in the present study we were concerned with the negative traits-those which might indicate maladjustment-only 19 of the 38 questions were selected for scoring. Typical of the questions scored are the following:

1. Who brags and boasts about things that you know aren’t so? 2. Can you guess who is so quiet in class you would never know he (or she) was there? 3. Who is most likely to cheat or copy when the teacher’s back is turned? 4. Whom would you call a tattle-tale? 5. Who is a show-off?

No attempt was made to weight items. The score for any one child was simply the total number of votes he accumulated on the 19 questions.

Selection of subjects. Each child’s rank in his own cottage on each of the three tests was determined. The sum of three rank scores was then found and these total rank scores re-ranked. Subjects for therapy were chosen from the top ranks. Besides test score ranks, age was also considered in the

FLEMING AND SNYDER 103

Total --

60 46 3s 29

63 55 53

selection. The age of the oldest and youngest child in each group did not differ more than two years. At the beginning of contacts the worker had no information about any of the children. Besides the two criteria mentioned, age and high total rank score, no other factors were considered in selection. While not originally studied, the factor of length of institutionalization was also controlled, the treated children not differing in this respect from the others.

Table 1 gives significant test data in the two therapy groups.

TABLE 1. PRE-TEST RESULTS IN THE T W O T H E R A P Y GROUPS

Personality Test Scores**

P S F D

16 23 17 7 11 15 9 11 9 17 10 2 9 14 6 0

19 23 12 9 20 14 13 8 25 15 6 5

~

Boys Jim Carl Neil Bill

Girls Shirley

Marsha Judy

9-1 1 9-5 9-s

11-5

9- 1 9-1 1 8-7

Total

st Rank

Guess Who

2 8 3 1

1 6.5 6.5

Socio- metric

9 2 4 1

1 4 9.5

Rogers* Person.

1 5

16 26

3 8 6

* This column gives children’s rank order, not their raw scores. ** P-Personal inferiority, S-Social maladjustment, F-Family maladjustment, D-Daydreaming.

Playroom, trat?sportution, length o f contacts. Contacts with each group were held twice a week for half-hour periods over a period of six weeks; twelve contacts with the boys and eleven with the girls. Verbatim records of interviews were made by a stenographer of college age, who sat in one corner of the playroom during the therapy period. It was decided that she remain in the background and that any behavior the children might direct toward her be handled by the therapist.

Contacts took place in the playroom of the Psychological Clinic which is equipped with creative play material-clay, paints, and crayons, as

well as toys of a more definite nature such as dolls, play furniture, a sandbox, bottles, guns, nails, and a pounding log. Airplane models were also available. Three pans of water were allowed each period.

Transportation of the groups to and from the playroom proved to be Somewhat of a problem. I t was solved for the boy’s group by having the therapist meet and bring them in from the Home by streetcar. Occasionally a taxi was hired. The girls were usually accompanied by an older girl who waited in another room during the therapy period.


Treatment of data. Since “turnover” made i t impossible for 16 of the original 46 children to be retested, the test scores for these 16 were ignored in analysis of results. Data is based on scores of the remaining 1 7 boys and 13 girls-those who completed all three tests both times. T o render the first sociometric and “Guess Who” scores of these 30 subjects comparable to their retest scores, it was necessary to throw out that part of each child’s pre-test score which was contributed by the 16 members not retested. We then had scores for two control groups and two therapy groups. For the four boys who underwent treatment, there were 13 others who did not. Likewise, it was possible to check the three girl subjects against their control group of ten.

Since each child had eight different scores (including five on the personality test) for each set of “before’’ and “after” tests, it was possible to compare statistically each experimental group with its control group in eight different ways. This was done in chi-square tables by using total raw scores of the experimental group against those of its control group.

T e c h iqu e Principles followed in nondirective play therapy with individuals were in

this instance applied to groups of children. A free play situation was struc- tured and adhered to. The counselor, through creating a permissive atmosphere, encouraged expression of feelings, her primary function being to reflect these feelings. The main difference between the individual and group situation from the counselor’s viewpoint is quantitative. With the group, instead of having one child’s feelings to recognize and respond to, he has three or four. He may respond either to what he perceives to be the outstanding feeling of a child a t the moment, or to several feelings a t once. To illustrate :

Jim (as he cleans paint brush)-I have to get my pigs finished in a hurry! Bill-Use your own fingers to clean it. Go on! (Jim ignores him.) Counselor (to Bill)-It makes you mad when people don’t do what you say. Bill makes a move to show Jim how to do something but Jim refuses his aid. Counselor-Bill likes to show people what to do, but Jim doesn’t like Bill to show him.

I n the first instance the counselor responded to Bill’s feeling instead of Jim’s; in the latter, both feelings were caught in one statement.

The children were told by their housemother that they could go to the university with Miss Fleming twice a week to play. The whole idea was treated as an adventure and, so far as can be determined, no mention was ever made of contacts as being anything other than play groups.

From the following verbatim excerpts of interviews one may gain an idea of the way therapy was handled, and the general course which treatment took during the twenty-three contacts.


GIRL’S GROUP Third contact, June 18: Marsha, Shirley, Judy: S-Are we allowed to put the blanket on the floor and sit on i t ? Counselor-You wonder what I would think. Yes, it’s all right. (J and M begin to pound on easel with mallets. S puts her hands to her ears and makes

C-The noise worries you. S-Don’t pound so much you girls.

S-It makes too much noise. J-Are we allowed to put aprons on? C-Yes. (All do so. M and J paint while S sorts furniture. Silence for awhile.) M (Showing her picture of five tulips)--look, Miss F., look. C-Um hm, you’re kinda proud of those. M--I wish we could stay an hour. C-You’d like very much to stay longer than the regular time. M-Why can’t we? C-Makes you a little mad that you don’t get to stay longer. M-No reason for it. Why can’t we? C-We’ve set aside just half an hour. M-How many minutes? C-We have half an hour. M-Yes, but how many minutes? C-Thirty. %That’s a lot. M-I wish Thursday would hurry and come. c-You like so much to come here that you just can’t wait for next time. M-I wish we could come every day. (Starts painting again, and drips some on the

C-Maybe you think I don’t like you to get things messy. That’s all right.

a face.)

M-Why ?

easel.) Ugh, messy. (Looks questioningly a t counselor.)

Fifth contact, June 25: J-Don’t put that color in again, Marsha. c-You like to tell Marsha what to do. M-She always fights with me (J smiles). c-You like to fuss with Marsha. J-Yes, it makes me feel fine. M-Can I paint a toy? C-You think you should? M-Well, it won’t hurt the toy I want to paint. C-We don’t paint the toys. J-Goody, goody! you can’t paint it. M (To self)-You won’t stop me, 1’11 paint what I want to and I’m going to paint a nail. c (Not hearing last remark)-Our time’s UP for today. M-I have to paint one more nail. c-I know you hate to go, but our time is up. M-1 said I have to paint one more nail (does so hurriedly).


Eighth contact, July 5: Marsha and Shirley. Judy is not present for last four contacts. S picks u p a jar of clay and asks counselor if she can dump i t all out. C-You think maybe you shouldn’t. It’s all right. (M takes clay from s.) S--Oh, Marsha, don’t. C-Makes you mad when Marsha takes something away from you. M-Makes me mad when she takes it from me too. (M throws clay and hits a bottle.) S-Marsha, did you see that bottle you hi t? ( M does not answer, but picks u p a duck and

C-You’d like to take something from here. But we can only take what we make. (Remark lost) M (Screaming)-Shirley, did you hear what I said? S-I heard you, but don’t shout a t me. C-Makes you mad when you’re bossed. M-It makes me mad to be bossed. (S picks u p saw and saws a few strokes on bench.) S-I did that. C-You want me to see that you can saw. S-It’s raining. M-It is not, you liar. S-Marsha just told a lie. She said I was a liar. M-She’s deaf. She told a lie when she said it was raining. S-Marsha’s deaf. (Continues sawing.) Marsha was locked u p in the closet. M-Shirley was put in the closet and I laughed so they put me in the closet because I

like to see other people punished. (Watches S who is having some difficulty sawing.) Shirley’s doing hard work and I’m glad.

(S puts down saw and picks up animals from sand pile.) I’m not working hard. See? I’m not doing it. (Puts toy cow in pan of water.) Marsha’s afraid of these.

M-I am not. C (To S)-You’d like to think that Marsha’s afraid of them. M-I’m afraid of real cows but not those.

throws it into the sand pile.) Can I take the duck home with me?

S-The water’s dirty, we need some clean. (Begins to talk baby talk, telling M to put blue paint into the water. Counselor gets clean water for the girls. They pick up bottles and nipples.)

M-1 get the best nipples and bottles. S-You big skunk. C (To M)-You like to have the best of everything. S-A skunk shouldn’t have the best of everything. C-You think that Marsha should not have the best of everything. (S puts nipple on

M-Shirley, you help me. (S does so, calling her a skunk all the while.) C-Shirley, you’ll help her, but you still think she’s a skunk. S-Yes, she is. (Girls get screen in front of bench, hiding it from view of counselor. M lies down on the

bench and drinks water from the bottle, sucking vigorously on the nipple. A little later she moves the screen away and lies sucking the bottle in full view.)

bottIe and begins to chew it. M tries to put screen in front of bench and it falls on her.)

S-Put this screen back, Marsha. M-No, she can’t see me then. S-Marsha, put it back when 1 lie down.

FL.EMING AND SNYDER 107

C-Shirley doesn’t want me to see but Marsha does. M-Sometimes I don’t want you to see me. C-You’re afraid I might not like it.

(M keeps lifting receiver of real telephone, casting glances a t counselor.) c-You want to see what you can do, but we are to use the play phone only. (M begins

S-Marsha, quit doing that. M-Let me dial it like this. c-You don’t like to be bossed. You want to have your own way. M-Let me do it just once. C-You want to see just how far you can go. M-Just once more and then I’ll quit. (When she begins to dial, C goes over to phone

C-You don’t want to see someone get the best of you. M (Angrily)-Just once more (clings to phone). C-It makes you mad a t me, but you are to use the toy phone to play with. M (Loudly)*-Let me do it jus t once! C-You don’t like it when someone says you can’t do something, and then you beg them

M-Just once more; no one answers. C-You can get mad a t me, but play with the little phone. S-Marsha, get away from there. M-Just once more. (At this point S brings over a tube of glue and asks counselor to

open it. M watches her, then walks over to toy phone, picks it u p but immediately puts it down.)

to dial phone and continues to look a t C.)

where Marsha has both hands on it, and is pleading for “just one more.”)

until they let you.

S-Is it O.K. if I paste two pieces of wood together? C-You always want people to tell you what you can do. M-Shirley, you dumb ape. (Kicks block on floor.) C-Makes you still a little mad because you couldn’t use the phone. M-Shirley, come and tell me where you got the hammer. S-NO. M-Why not? (S ignores her and tries to put glue on wood.) This old gooey stuff. I t

M-I’m glad. won’t stick.

Results The significance of the changes in test results is shown in Table 2, which

gives the chi-squares of the difference between changes in the experimental and control groups, the significance of the chi-square (P), and the direction in which the change occurred for the two groups.

Retest results for the girl therapy subjects showed a remarkable change Over first test results. On each of the three tests this change was in one direction-toward improved adjustment.

An analysis of sociometric “acceptance” scores shows that after therapy the experimental group aroused a significantly greater amount of positive


feeling from the group. On the first test their choice scores together totaled only 8 points. By the time of the retest, it was four times greater. Although the score of the control group also rose, that of the experimental group did so much more significantly.

Analysis of the Rogers Personality Test scores indicates in which of four areas subjects showed most improvement, and its significance. For the girls,

TABLE 2. TEST-RETEST CHANGES IN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL

Tests

R.P.T.** Total score Personal inferior score Social mnladj. score Family maladj. score Daydreaming score

“Guess Who” Test Sociometric “Rejection”

Sociometric “Acceptance” Score

Score

GROUPS FOLLOWING THERAPY

GirIs Group Boys Group

P* Chi- square

-- 7.71 <.01 2.10 .16 0.93 .35 1.60 .21 3.80 .05 3.57 .04

Change Change in in

control exper. group group

0 +++ - +++ + + + 0 ++ 0 ++

-

-

2.19 .15 0 + 13.59 <.01 0 +++

Change Chi- in

square p* control group

.26 .62 0

.07 .7S -

.61 . f l +

.22 .6$ 0

.01 .90 0

.08 .78 0

Change in

exper. groirp

0

+ 0 0 0

-

.03 .85 + + 3.63 .06 ++ --

* Chances in one hundred that the difference between the control and experimental group is not a

** Rogers Personality Test. Key to Symbols:

true difference.

f = slight improvement ++=some improvement

+++=marked improvement

- =slight decrement O=no change

- - =some (average) decrement

adjustment in all four areas improved significantly. We see greatest improvement occurring in the areas of daydreaming and personal adjustment. Least headway is made in social adjustment.

Table 2 reveals no significant change for the four boys who underwent therapy, except in one instance: a t the end of the treatment period, positive scores on the sociometric test showed a definite decrease, an undesirable sign.

Individual changes. Since the chi-squares in Table 2 are sensi tive only to group changes and not to individual score variations, a more thorough


analysis of data suggests that each subject’s scores be examined and in- terpreted. Table 3 shows pre- and end test scores for the seven therapy subjects. The score range for each test is found in the fourth and last columns.

TABLE 3. BEFORE AND AFTER SCORES OF SEVEN THERAPY SUBJECTS - -

Marsha Judy Shirley

Score range for girls in experimental and control groups

__

Personafity Test*

Before After

55-H 32-L 53-H 35-L 63-H 51-H

--___

63-25 51-29

Cr.rl Bill Neil Jim

Score range for boys in experimental and control groups

__

Sociomeiric Rejection Scores*

46-H 38-Av 29-L 37-Av 36-Av 42-Av 60-H 66-H

60 29 66-23

Before After

9 19 16 17 70 41

70-0 41-0

19 28 51 73 22 14 2 0

51-0 73-0

Guess Who*

Before After

9 14 12 9 65 35

65-0 35-0

10 10 33 54 17 9 21 6

33-0 54-0

* On each test a high score is unfavorable. Key to Symbols:

H = high maladjustment

L = low maladjustment Av= average maladjustment

Marsha’s greatest change occurred in the area of personal adjustment, as shown by a decrease of 23 points on the personality test. An example of her second test responses gives clues to some of her attitude changes. The most Pronounced response changes occur in the “daydreaming” and “personal inferiority” areas. By the end of therapy periods she indicates by extreme checks on “no” that she no longer likes to “sit by herself and imagine things,” that she no longer desires “make-believe friends in a make-believe world.” Her former wish to be a movie star is now replaced by the more realistic Wish to be a singer; now she would choose to go to the circus with her best friend rather than alone. All responses tend to take more of a middle road; especially is this true in number four, where her atttitudes toward self and her ideal more nearly approach one another. She no longer considers herself the leader or the most popular girl in school, nor does she wish to be. She no longer wishes to be the prettiest girl in school, nor the brightest. In the area Of family adjustment, she now admits that she is sometimes cross with her brothers, but states that she “is proud of them” when they are praised for

110 NONDIRECTIV GROUP PLAY THERAPY

something. Her former wish, first of all to be “stronger than I am now,” has slipped to a place of tertiary importance.

Changes on the other two tests are not so favorable. Her rank on each changed from four to two (high ranks being undesirable). Where before only two girls rejected her, now there are six who do. An opposite trend takes place in her sociometric “acceptance” score. On the first test her score was a flat zero; on the retest i t was 20-enough to rank her as the fourth most chosen of the group. I t is important to note, however, that Shirley gave her half this score and Judy the other half. The control group, in making their choices, completely ignored her.

On the “Guess Who” retest Marsha was named on negative traits five times more than formerly. Three of these votes appeared on one item where previously none had occurred. Three people, i t seems, now consider Marsha as the “person who is always getting mad about things.”

Similar rather extensive analyses were also made in the cases of the other children, but because of limited space will not be reported in full.

Judy’s personal adjustment has improved considerably. Responses on the personality test indicate that she now gets along better with other children and has more confidence in herself. The other two tests show no notable change.

Shirley still remains a highly maladjusted child. However, all three retest scores (barring the neutral sociometric “acceptance” score) show a marked change for the better. Her attitude toward family has improved considerably. She is not rejected nearly so strongly by her companions as formerly, nor credited with negative traits so frequently.

Carl’s greatest change shows up on the personality test. This shows his social and family adjustment to be quite normal after therapy. Although still high, his retest score in the area of daydreaming indicates that he is much less wrapped up in dreams. H e still feels highly inferior in a great many respects, and this time he admits it. Attitudes of the group toward him show no change.

After therapy, Bill appears not quite so well adjusted on the Rogers test. From the rank of low maladjustment he moves into that of average maladjustment. H e seems not quite so sure of himself as formerly. Rogers test score is still quite a t odds with his other two test scores, which show little social acceptance of Bill. He remains extremely disliked by other members of the group. I t is possible, however, that he is now more aware of this lack of acceptance.

Neil’s attitudes toward self have become even better than they were. H e is rather well satisfied with being nine years old, and thinks he is good a t things. Though the boys have a less rejecting attitude toward him, he is not as well liked as formerly. Although his personality test score has increased a

FLEMING AND B Y D E R 111

few points, to all appearances he is still a fairly well-adjusted child. Jim’s very high maladjustment remains very high after twelve therapy

contacts. On the personality test he admits feeling even greater social inferiority, and covers it with a “don’t care” attitude. Although the boys do not attribute to him as many negative traits as formerly, their indifference toward him (as witnessed by the sociometric tests) is probably just as vicious.

General view of treatment progress f o r girls. The girls found it difficult a t first to accept the half-hour time limit. Especially was this true for Marsha, who mentioned the subject a t least once in each of the first five contacts. In the initial interview it came in a mild form when the therapist indicated that the time was up, and Marsha replied, “Wait till we get things cleaned up. . . . Can we begin to play some more?” When in the fifth interview the therapist said, “I know you hate to go, but our time is up,” Marsha came back firmly with, “I said I have to paint one more nail,” and hurriedly did

Little real aggressiveness was shown until the eighth contact, when Shirley and Marsha began calling each other names. During this interview, expressed feeling reached a peak in Marsha’s testing of certain limits. She decided to try using the telephone in the play room, and began dialing numbers and lifting the receiver, meanwhile casting glances toward the therapist. When the therapist explained that the telephone was not among the toys with which the children might play, Marsha became in turn willful, angry, and pleading.

This contact also marked a beginning of somewhat erotic play with water and baby bottles. Each girl took turns a t lying on the bench and having the other girl feed her water from a nippled bottle. They arranged a screen between them and the therapist, and pursued their play with vigorous suckings on the nipple. Play with water bottles was resumed in each of the following three contacts, but seemed to assume a more casual air. Instead of lying on a bench, they carried filled bottles around the room with them and took oc- casional swigs.

In tracing each girl’s behavior throughout the eleven contacts, we find changes occurring in their reactions to one another which are perhaps of Significance. Shirley, for the first seven interviews, quietly allowed the other two girls to take away her toys, boss her around and mock her. However, toward the eighth contact she began to show spirit when attacked. When hfarsha took her clay, Shirley made her first protest, “Oh, Marsha, don’t.’’ A little later when Marsha screamed, “Shirley, did you hear what I said?” Shirley answered, “I heard you-but don’t shout a t me.’’ She even called Marsha a skunk. Once she flatly refused to do Marsha’s bidding, and instead, tried a few commands herself: “Don’t begin until I get my bottle

“Put this screen back, Marsha.” This boldness continued, reaching a

so.


high point in the tenth contact when she came right out and hit Marsha, Comments such as these were heard from Shirley: “I will i f I want to”; “Marsha, give me my boat”; “I’ll paint clay and use the water anyway.” In the last interview, even though a few mild slaps on Marsha’s arms Were required, Shirley was still holding her own, or a t least protesting when Marsha “stamped” on her toes in some way. For Shirley i t was a far cry from the meekness and submissiveness of the first few interviews.

Marsha’s self-assertiveness afforded a striking contrast to Shirley’s timidity a t the beginning of therapy. Her tendency to boss others was moderately evident in the second interview through such statements as “You didn’t put the (doll’s) dress on right”; “Someone help me roll this log.” By the middle of treatment she was bossing the others in a more as- sured manner: “We don’t care if you don’t like it, Judy”; “Close the win- dow, Shirley.” During this period of treatment she showed that her think- ing was that she deserved the best of everything, and rarely hesitated to take toys from the others. This attitude was expressed frequently in such statements as, “I get the best nipples and bottles”; “I want to pour it in there myself” (taking paint from Judy). In the last few interviews her bos- siness and imposition of her wishes on others began to assume a milder tone. She grew a little kinder toward Shirley and occasionally even asked her opinion. Once she admitted, “That does look pretty,” of a clay sucker which Shirley had made.

No significant change was evident in Judy’s behavior. I t will be remem- bered that she came for only the first seven contacts. From then until the time of retests she was away on a camping trip with her parents.

There were several other interesting points concerning development of the children’s comments. In the ninth and tenth interviews we notice remarks made on the therapist’s wearing apparel, and on her accent. “That’s a pretty dress you have on today. You always wear pretty dresses.” “I like to hear you talk.” The frequent comments expressing liking for the therapy si tua- tion during the first half of the period seemed to show a decrease toward the end.

General view of treatment progress for buys. I n the first two contacts the boys played in a very subdued manner. A few knocks on the pounding lo& was the most noise they dared make; their voices for the most part were just above a whisper. By the third contact their manner had become somewhat freer. They engaged in a water battle, squirting at each other through nippled bottles, and there was much giggling and laughter. They continued the battle during the next contact, but it was not until the seventh period that all four pounded on blocks or really allowed themselves to make noise. For five minutes they pounded on blocks and shouted. In the tenth contact they began to make the airplane models, which had been available


to them since the first day. For the remaining periods, all except Jim were thus occupied.

The boys seldom expressed intense feeling toward each other. Once Jim called Carl a “dumb dope’’ and told him to shut up; another time Bill angrily threw a coke-bottle cap a t Jim.

Bill showed a tendency to lead and boss the group a t first. H e was usually first to play with a new toy, to start pounding the log or modeling clay or making “pink poison.” In the first interview he pushed Jim from the doll house, told him to leave women out of it, and told him how and where to wash his paint brush. I n his last three interviews Bill showed less desire to tell others what to do. H e modeled clay and played with paint.

Jim exhibited a certain spirit of playfulness throughout treatment. H e would throw a doll dress to Bill, saying “Here’s a dress for you, Bill,” and then giggle. This giggle, along with a shrill little scream, were outstanding characteristics. A t times he became quite domestic, making sandcakes, setting the table, etc. Once he went through the complete routine, naming each step to himself. “I’ll set the table first. Now I’ll do the cooking. Now we have to e a t . . . now wash the dishes. Let me dump out this garbage. Now 1 have to dry ’em. Boy, I’m full as a balloon.” Jim would play in the sandpile for minutes on end-shoveling the sand and making a hissing sound with his mouth.

In the beginning Neil was very quiet, preferring to play alone in the sand or a t the pounding log. In the third contact, however, he was right in the water battle and thereafter seemed more a part of the group. I n the last Contact an interesting episode occurred between him and Carl concerning glue for the models they were making. Neil had brought a large tube of glue with him and was using it. Carl had no glue. For several minutes he pa- tiently searched the room for some, but was unsuccessful. ‘(Well, I can’t find any glue.” H e then began handling the various parts of his plane, and not Once asked glue from Neil, who was busily gluing all the time. Finally Neil said, “Maybe we could break my tube in half and you could use half.”

Water, paint, and baby bottles were the materials used most frequently (in order stated) by both groups. The girls played with one or all of these materials in every contact, as did the boys, except for the last two periods in which they made airplane models.

There was no sex difference in the manner of play with paint. All children played in either of two ways; they mixed powder-paint and water or painted with brushes. With the other two materials, such was not the case. The girls

filled their baby bottles for the purpose of feeding the didy-doll, or drinking the water themselves; the boys filled their bottles for the purpose of Squirting the toys or one another. Only for a brief moment did any of them suck the bottle. While the boys used their pans of water mainly for painting


or for water fights, the girls used them for washing doll clothes and dishes. In only one interview did the girls use the pounding log or the guns.

Results The significant change in the girls’ experimental group on the “Guess

Who” and sociometric tests was accounted for by the greatly decreased score of one girl-Shirley. Judy’s scores remained almost the same after therapy as before, and Marsha’s actually showed a slight increase. After therapy, the girls’ total “acceptance” score showed significant improvement. I t is important to determine whether this improvement was mainly a result of increased positive votes from the control group or from the three subjects themselves. It so happens that the latter is the case. Marsha and Shirley received no acceptance votes on the first test, but on the retest Marsha came up to fourth rank, not because the control group chose her, but because Judy and Shirley cast over half their choices for her. Judy’s score almost doubled on the retest because Marsha cast votes in her direction. I t would appear that although the therapy experience created more positive feeling among subjects, i t did not cause the control group to like them any better. In fact, Judy is rejected by three more, and Marsha by four more girls after therapy. A possible explanation is that the girls in the cottage resented the fact that Marsha and Judy were allowed the special privilege of coming to the University to play. They did not reject Shirley nearly so intensely as formerly, perhaps because they were beginning to feel that she had borne the brunt of their harsh feelings long enough.

The questionable nature of the girls’ improvement on the sociometric and “Guess Who” tests in no way depreciates the outstanding result of this study: that after therapy, girl subjects showed highly significant improvement on a standardized personality test for children. Furthermore, the control group score on this test remained the same over the six-week period. Greatest change for subjects occurred in the areas of personal feelings toward self and daydreaming. This would tend to uphold the recently proffered theory that personal change in adjustment precedes social change.

The fact that outcome of treatment was not so favorable for the boys as for the girls is a matter for speculation. We might consider this problem from three aspects: 1) difference in rapport gained with each group; 2) difference in housemothers of each group; and 3) difference in grouping of children for therapy.

It was felt that rapport between therapist and the boys was never quite complete. Boys seemed to regard the therapist as just another woman with whom they should assume their?best behavior. True, she didn’t seem to mind water battles or noise, but still you couldn’t show anger or fear in front of an adult (a woman a t that), and then talk it over with her. During therapy


eriods the boys played among themselves and, when the therapist made a P statement, ignored her more often than not. The girls, on the other hand, felt free to recount experiences in their daily life at the Home. They rather admired their therapist, as witnessed by their comments on her persona1 ap- pearance and manner. When she made a statement, they gave some indica- tion that they had heard-either by agreeing, disagreeing, elaborating, or bringing up a new subject. I t would seem that there did exist a positive feeling between the girls and the therapist.

It is generally accepted that, when a child is around the age of ten, the “ideal person” is likely to be an adult of the same sex. It is possible that the therapist’s being a woman, although a favorable factor in the establishment of rapport with the girls, was an unfavorable factor with the boys. Also, the boys, because of therapy periods, missed one or two chances to go swimming with the other children. The therapist did not realize this until they eventu- ally suggested that the day of their interviews be changed. Furthermore, it was necessary for the therapist to go after the boys and accompany them home from interviews. During these travel periods her function had to be somewhat disciplinary in character. These additional complications may have had a deleterious effect on rapport.

Individual differences in the two housemothers’ attitudes toward the children, and in their methods of handling them, may have had an effect in the outcome of therapy for each group. The housemother in charge of the girls seemed interested in each of them and anxious that they grow up with healthy mental habits. On the contrary, the boys’ housemother seemed to have an antagonizing and tyrannical manner with the children. She spoke to them in a loud impatient voice and became quite angry if their way of doing things did not suit her. It might be said that the girls’ home environment was much more conducive to improvement resulting from therapy.

In this study no criteria other than age and maladjustment scores were used in selection of subjects. The type and intensity of maladjustment, or the “personality type” of subjects were not considered. It is highly possible that the group dynamics, or the chance combination of personalities within the girls’ group, were of such a nature as to be of therapeutic value per se, while such was not the case with the boys. Perhaps Marsha and Shirley Presented an optimum combination for treatment by group therapy, inas- much as Shirley’s submissive ways offered opportunity for Marsha to work through her need to boss people, and in that Marsha’s bossing brought Shirley to grips with her own problem of being a “doormat” for people. Also, each girl was maladjusted to approximately the same degree, while there was a wide difference between each boy’s adjustment score. On the Rogers Per- sonality Test the girls all fell within the category of “high maladjustment,” but the four boys ran the gamut from high to low. I t would appear that for


best therapeutic effects, the children in a group should not vary too greatly in their degree or intensity of maladjustment.

Since there were such discrepancies between results for the two groups, it might be well to consider certain trends in the successful group which were not evident in the less successful one. T h e girls verbalized their feelings more freely than did the boys; they became angry with each other and said so. T h e boys, on the other hand, seemed more repressed in their relationship to one another, and often hammered on the pounding log for minutes a t a time. The girls openly rebelled against the half-hour time limit, but the boys from the very first accepted i t and made no move to test other limits after discovering what they were. I t would seem justifiable to conclude that open conflicts over limitations of the therapy situation have a definite therapeutic advantage.

It was found that the sociometric and “Guess Who” test results did not always correspond to results on the personality test area of social adjustment. It appears that a child may be quite rejected by his peers and still not feel unhappy or maladjusted. Bill is a glorified example. Both sets of test results are paradoxical, showing him to be highly rejected, and yet well adjusted.

Treatment was by no means considered completed for any of the subjects. However, there can be no doubt that for four of the children it was well on the way to being successful.

CONCLUSIONS 1. Measurable changes in adjustment do take place as a result of non-

directive group play therapy. In this study four of the subjects showed a marked improvement, and three showed response changes on tests, but no improvement in scores.

2. Improvement for the girls was greater than for the boys. 3. Girls showed greater change in personal than in the social adjustment. 4. Subjects’ conflict over therapy limits has definite therapeutic ad-

5. Water, paints, and nursing bottles were the most important media for

6. The sex of the counselor may be a factor in establishing rapport with

7. It would appear that for best therapeutic effect, the children in a group

vantages.

expression of feelings.

children around the age of ten.

should not vary too greatly in degree or intensity of maladjustment.

Documents

SOCIAL AND PERSONAL CHANGES FOLLOWING NON-DIRECTIVE GROUP PLAY THERAPY