POINT
Supporting Aggressive Play: Allowing Handcuffs in Session CONSTANCE B. RATCLIFF, PHD, LMFT, LPC/MHSP-S, RPT-S
Aggressive play has been defined as an “adaptive strategy in the face of unmanageable experiences of fear and pain” (Dion, 2018, p. 1) and is considered developmentally appropriate for achieving emotional expression, regulation, understanding, mindfulness, trauma reenactment, balanced perspectives, coping skill acquisition, exploration of aggressive instincts and integration of painful life stressors/experiences/events
(Smith, Ferguson, & Beaver, 2018).
During aggressive play, children frequently choose play handcuffs, toy swords, weapons, shields, play guns, rubber knives, toy soldiers and aggressive puppets (Dion, 2018; Landreth, 2002; Smith, Ferguson, & Beaver, 2018).
When children request to utilize play handcuffs and/or to handcuff self or the therapist in session, the play therapist may be unsure how to proceed and/or may experience emotional flooding. Emotional flooding, characterized by avoidance, denial, or shutting down, is a normal part of being in a relationship. It can occur as the therapist observes and/or actively participates in a child’s aggressive play and serves as an indicator that the play therapist is moving outside their own window of tolerance, which must be larger than the child’s window of tolerance (Dion, 2018).
To decrease emotional flooding in session, therapists are cautioned to “create a neuroception of safety and help the child return into their window of tolerance” (Dion, 2018, p. 46) through therapist self- regulation. When a child seeks to handcuff the play therapist and/ or engage in similar aggressive play themes, therapists can limit their own emotional flooding by remaining grounded, connected, highly attuned, genuine, self-aware of fear triggers, and can self- regulate their feelings, responses, and triggers by leaning into the discomfort, staying with and naming the feeling, calming the reactive amygdala, staying engaged, utilizing mindfulness, tracking through
THE MIDDLE GROUND
observational statements, acknowledging the child’s frustration and/ or emotional flooding, and setting boundaries and/or redirecting when the aggressive play moves outside the therapist’s window of tolerance (Dion, 2018).
Instead of automatically responding to handcuff play with a “No” response, which can trigger child feelings of shame, guilt, and confusion, play therapists are cautioned to intentionally acknowledge the child’s intense feelings and redirect by saying, “Show me another way,” or conveying, “I don’t need to hurt to understand” (Dion, 2018, p. 140). Additionally, when handcuff play poses safety concerns in the playroom, appropriate limits can be set by “acknowledging the child’s feelings, wants, and wishes; communicating the limit,
targeting acceptable
alternatives, and when a limit is broken, stating a final choice” (Crenshaw & Mordock, 2005, p. 36; Landreth, 2012).
When a therapist perceives that an aggressive play situation was not handled optimally and/or notices therapist-child mis-attunement, they can employ relationship repairs to realign with the child, restore the rupture, reestablish trust, facilitate attachment, and increase the depth of emotional connection (Dion, 2018). Dion (2018) encouraged therapists to be congruent, authentic, and to facilitate child self-reflection and integration of emotional experiences, life stressors, and bodily sensations.
Aggressive/handcuff play is often utilized by children in the play therapy room to “project their inner world onto the toys and therapist, setting them up to experience their perception of what it feels like to be them” (Dion, 2018, p. 101). Therefore, play therapists who allow handcuffs in session and for children to handcuff them may gain greater understanding of the child and their therapeutic process.
To Cuff or Not to Cuff… That is the Question BRIJIN GARDNER, MSW, LSCSW, RPT-S
Play therapists have personal guidelines and therapeutic boundaries for their playroom. However, not all boundaries are hard and fast. Frequently, playroom decisions are based on children’s presenting clinical and therapeutic needs and play therapists’ capacity. There are certain children whose narrative may require specific props or symbols present for play; while other children are able to create what they need with the toys available. Working with complex clients requires flexibility and authenticity in the playroom. When setting boundaries, that means becoming clear on one’s personal and professional windows of tolerance (Malchiodi, 2016, 2020; Siegel, 2010).
16 | PLAYTHERAPYMarch 2020 |
www.a4pt.org
Therapists rely on clinical, personal, physical, and historical motives to make choices. Consultation or supervision can help the practitioner get clear on the reason behind their “no.” Is it out of fear of being hurt or restrained? Are the cuffs too uncomfortable and dig into their skin? Is there a physical limitation that may inhibit abilities if cuffed? Is the client presently unpredictable or aggressive – and the therapist is pregnant or recovering from an injury?
Once a therapist is clear on the reason for their boundary, they can explore if the boundary is inhibiting the child’s process or ability to delve deeper into their narrative, experience, or process. If being the handcuffed object in the play pushes the therapist outside their window
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
